AIA Bloghttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/
The America Invents Acten-usCopyright 2015Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:17:18 -0500Apache Roller (incubating) 4.0.1 (20090102102238:dave)http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_seniorMESSAGE FROM JANET GONGOLA, SENIOR ADVISOR: USPTO Timely Releases Two New AIA Reports on Virtual Marking and the Satellite Offices prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_senior
Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:27:45 -0400Studies and Reportsaiamarkingsatellitevirtualreportsoffices<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The USPTO is pleased to announce the release of two reports mandated by Congress under the AIA.&nbsp; Both reports were due in September 2014, and the agency issued each on time.</font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Satellite Office Report</font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Today, on its due date of September 30, 2014, the USPTO submitted the Satellite Office Report to Congress.&nbsp; The agency explained the criteria used to select the location of its four satellite offices in Detroit, Denver, Dallas, and the Silicon Valley as well as the process and timing to build out those offices.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The Report also delved into the achievements of the satellite offices, including their impact on the patent application backlog and pendency, examiner recruitment and retention, and stakeholder outreach.&nbsp; The USPTO reported that examiners in the satellite offices are contributing to a reduction of the patent application backlog and pendency equal to the examiners in Alexandria.&nbsp; The Office likewise reported that examiner recruitment and retention in the satellite offices of Detroit and Denver (the locations where permanent offices currently exist) match that for examiners in Alexandria.&nbsp; </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Finally, the agency detailed numerous and varied stakeholder outreach events in each geographic location ranging from Saturday Seminars to educate stakeholders about the patent system to meetings with industries to spur innovation and the U.S. economy.</font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Virtual Marking Report</font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Two weeks ago, on September 16, 2014, the agency submitted its Virtual Marking Report to Congress.&nbsp; Under the AIA, an article may be marked with the word &quot;patent&quot; or abbreviation &quot;pat.&quot; followed by a website address where the article is associated with the relevant protective patents.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Office solicited public input through a Federal Register Notice in preparing this Report and received nine comments in response.&nbsp; The agency drew from these comments in preparing the Report.&nbsp; </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The agency first addressed the effectiveness of virtual marking as an alternative to physically marking the article with the patent information, concluding that virtual marking is serving its congressionally-intended purpose of making it easier for manufacturers to mark small-sized articles and keep patent information current on articles without having to re-tool production equipment or create new molds.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The Report next addressed whether virtual marking has limited or improved the public's access to patent information along with possible legal issues that arise from virtual marking.&nbsp; Because there has not been any litigation involving the virtual marking statutory provision yet, the USPTO noted that follow-up may be needed here.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Lastly, the agency considered deficiencies in constructive notice arising from virtual marking as compared with physical marking, not identifying any significant ones, though pointing to aspects to watch going forward.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The Virtual Marking and Satellite Office Reports are available here: </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_studies_reports.jsp"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_studies_reports.jsp</font></a><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">.</font></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_administrative_patent_judgesMessage From Administrative Patent Judges Jacqueline Bonilla and Sheridan Snedden: Routine and Additional Discovery in AIA Trial Proceedings: What Is the Difference? prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_administrative_patent_judges
Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:01:26 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshowsptabtrialsaiadiscovery<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) created administrative trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) as a cost-effective alternative to litigation. Consistent with statutory provisions and legislative intent of the AIA, strong public policy exists to limit discovery in AIA proceedings. Thus, the scope of discovery in AIA trials before the Board differs significantly from the scope of discovery generally available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in district court litigation. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">AIA proceedings potentially involve three categories of limited discovery: (1)&nbsp;mandatory initial disclosures; (2) routine discovery; and (3) additional discovery. 37 C.F.R. §&nbsp;42.51. To provide flexibility, the Board’s rules allow parties to agree regarding (1) and (3). In fact, beyond certain routine discovery that parties must provide to each other, the Board encourages parties to agree on discovery whenever possible. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This article focuses on routine and additional discovery, the two most common of the three categories. Stay tuned for an upcoming article on mandatory initial disclosures, an option used less often so far, but one that allows parties to agree about the automatic discovery of certain information upon institution of a trial. </font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Routine Discovery</font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Routine discovery in AIA trials corresponds to evidence and information that a party must provide to the other side. Routine discovery is self-executing. <em>BlackBerry Corp. et al. v. Wi-Lan USA Inc</em>., IPR2013-00126, Paper 15, 2. Thus, there is no need for a party to file a motion for “routine discovery” with the Board, or serve a request for routine discovery on a party—parties have the burden to come forward and provide such material. <em>Id</em>.; 37 C.F.R. §&nbsp;42.51(b)(1); <em>Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp</em>., IPR2012-00005, Paper 19, 2. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Routine discovery includes: (i) any exhibit cited in a paper or in testimony in the case; (ii) cross examination of affidavit testimony; and (iii) relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by a party, which must be served concurrently with the filing of documents or things that contain the inconsistency. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In relation to (i), a party must serve such exhibits at the same time it serves a paper or testimony citing them, unless the exhibits were previously submitted, both parties agree, or the Board orders otherwise. <em>Id</em>. The rule regarding (i) does not require, however, that a party create materials or provide materials not cited. <em>See</em> Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions (“Trial Rules”), 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,622 (Aug. 14, 2012). In addition, (i) relates to evidence actually cited in a paper or testimony, not the materials that a party or witness relies upon when preparing the paper or testimony. <em>BlackBerry</em>, IPR2013-00126, Paper 15, 2; <em>see also</em> <em>Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.</em>, IPR2013-00043, Paper 27, 3 (stating routine discovery requirements do not require that “all the underlying data and lab notebooks be produced” with a paper that references an experiment). </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In relation to (ii), cross-examination of a declarant or affiant is permitted as routine discovery. 37 C.F.R. §&nbsp;42.51(b)(1)(ii). As noted in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, a party relying on a witness’s testimony by declaration or affidavit should arrange to make that witness available for cross-examination. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012). Normally, the burden and expense of producing a witness for cross-examination falls on the party presenting the witness. <em>Id</em>. </font></p>
<p><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In relation to (iii), the requirement for information inconsistent with a position advanced does not include discovery of material protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work product immunity. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii). Moreover, routine discovery under (iii) “is narrowly directed to specific information known to the responding party to be inconsistent with a position advanced . . . , and not broadly directed to any subject area in general within which the requesting party hopes to discover such inconsistent information.” <em>Garmin Int'l Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC</em>, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26, 3-4. <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></font></font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Additional Discovery and Five <em>Garmin</em> Factors</font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Beyond routine discovery, parties may agree to provide additional discovery. Otherwise, a party must request additional discovery. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i). The AIA legislative history makes clear that requested additional discovery should be confined to “particular limited situations, such as minor discovery that PTO finds to be routinely useful, or to discovery that is justified by the special circumstances of the case.” 154 Cong. Rec. S9988-89 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 2008) (statement of Sen. Kyl). In light of this history and statutory deadlines, the Board must be conservative in authorizing additional discovery. <em>See id.</em> at S9989. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The Board applies an “interests of justice” standard when deciding whether to grant additional discovery in <em>inter partes</em> reviews (IPRs), and a “good cause” standard in post-grant reviews (PGRs), including covered business method patent reviews (CBMs). 35 U.S.C. §&nbsp;316(a)(5); § 326(a)(5); 37 C.F.R. §&nbsp;42.51(b)(2); § 42.224(a). On balance, the interests of justice standard is slightly higher than the good cause standard. This difference reflects the more limited scope of issues raised in IPR petitions, i.e., grounds that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103 based on patents or printed publications, as compared with PGR petitions. 35 U.S.C. §&nbsp;311(b). Notwithstanding the two standards, however, the same principles caution against overly broad discovery. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">As outlined in the <em>Garmin</em> case, the Board typically weighs five factors when considering whether additional discovery in an IPR is “necessary in the interest of justice.” </font></p>
<ol>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation.</em> The mere possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that something useful will be found, are insufficient. Thus, the party requesting discovery already should be in possession of a threshold amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that something useful will be uncovered. “Useful” does not mean merely “relevant” or “admissible,” but rather means favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party moving for discovery. </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Litigation Positions And Underlying Basis.</em> Asking for the other party’s litigation positions and the underlying basis for those positions is not necessarily in the interest of justice. </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Ability To Generate Equivalent Information By Other Means. </em>Information a party can reasonably figure out, generate, obtain, or assemble without a discovery request would not be in the interest of justice. </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Easily Understandable Instructions.</em> The requests themselves should be easily understandable. For example, ten pages of complex instructions is prima facie unclear. </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Requests Not Overly Burdensome To Answer.</em> The Board considers financial burden, burden on human resources, and burden on meeting the time schedule of the review. Requests should be sensible and responsibly tailored according to a genuine need. </font></font></li>
</ol>
<p><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Garmin</em>, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26, 6-7; <em>see also id</em>. at Paper 20.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Other Board cases have addressed those five factors when considering whether to grant additional discovery in IPRs in relation to issues such as secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, prior art disclosures, expert testimony, and real party-in-interest or privity. Board decisions providing guidance on these issues include the following:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V</em>., IPR2013-00043, Paper 27 </font></font>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">granting a request for laboratory notebooks, stating that details of procedures were per se useful when a petitioner cited expert testimony that relied upon those details to demonstrate unpatentability (first <em>Garmin</em> factor weighed in favor of discovery, and other factors did not disfavor discovery) </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">denying a request for samples because party did not show that request was not overly burdensome (fifth <em>Garmin</em> factor) or could not get information through documents otherwise produced (third <em>Garmin</em> factor) </font></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publ'g, Inc</em>., IPR2013-00080, Paper 66 (granting additional discovery regarding e-mail communications between expert witnesses relied upon by those witnesses as a basis for their opinions) </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>RPX Corp. v. Virnetx Inc</em>., IPR2014-00171, Paper 25 (granting additional discovery regarding real party-in-interest and privity issues) </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, </em>IPR2014-00746, Paper 15 (granting additional discovery regarding an indemnification agreement as it relates to privity) </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc</em>., IPR2012-00026, Paper 32 (denying additional discovery relevant to commercial success) </font></font>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">stating that while “a conclusive showing of nexus is not necessary at this stage, some showing of relevance is necessary,” especially where the claimed feature “is itself not a product but one feature of a complex [] product”) (first <em>Garmin</em> factor) </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">stating that certain requested information seemed “publicly available on the Internet or elsewhere” (third <em>Garmin</em> factor) </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">noting that certain requests were not time-limited, and were imprecise, unfocused, and unduly burdensome (fifth <em>Garmin</em> factor) </font></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc</em>., IPR2013-00369, Paper 36 (denying additional discovery relating to copying, discussing nexus in relation to first <em>Garmin</em> factor, and that request appeared “not focused, overly broad, and unduly burdensome” under fifth <em>Garmin</em> factor) </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., Inc</em>., IPR2013-00358, Paper 43 (denying motion for additional discovery regarding commercial success) </font></font>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">request did not provide a threshold amount of evidence of (1) sales allegedly amounting to commercial success, or (2) alleged nexus between the claimed invention and commercial success (first <em>Garmin</em> factor) </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">denying requests as overly burdensome (fifth <em>Garmin</em> factor) because some were “not limited to” specific requested information, some requested documents “sufficient to show” something, without explaining “sufficient,” and some requested documents related to “forecasted” sales, not just actual sales, without explaining relevance to commercial success </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">delay of request weighed against granting motion </font></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Notwithstanding the slightly lower standard in PGRs and CBMs, the Board considers the same five <em>Garmin</em> factors used for IPRs when addressing whether additional discovery is necessary for “good cause,” and “limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions” advanced by a party. 37 C.F.R. § 42.224; <em>Bloomberg Inc. et al. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd</em>, CBM2013-00005, Paper 32. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">For example, as in an IPR, in showing the first <em>Garmin</em> factor, a moving party must provide a specific factual reason for expecting reasonably that the discovery will be “useful,” where “useful” means favorable in substantive value to a contention. <em>Bloomberg</em>, CBM2013-00005, Paper 32, 5; <em>see also Schott Gemtron</em>, IPR2013-00358, Paper 43, 4.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Board decisions providing guidance on the application of the five <em>Garmin</em> factors in a CBM include:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Bloomberg Inc. et al. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd</em>, CBM2013-00005, Paper 32 </font></font>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">granting a request for documents and things “specific and tailored narrowly, seeking information from one individual that is related to a single declaration on the issues raised . . . in [the] Petition” </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">denying other requests because arguments were speculative and did not provide sufficient factual reason to demonstrate that something “useful” would be uncovered (first <em>Garmin</em> factor), requestor could generate information by other means (third <em>Garmin</em> factor), requests were unduly broad and burdensome (fifth <em>Garmin</em> factor) </font></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc</em>., CBM2012-00001, Paper 24 (granting a request for five specific documents that were not burdensome to produce (fifth <em>Garmin</em> factor), where producing party did not identify prejudice other than alleged lack of relevance) </font></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Benefits of limited discovery include lowering costs, minimizing complexity, and shortening periods required for dispute resolution. The PTAB also must address these considerations in light of the one-year statutory deadline (absent limited exceptions) for completing AIA trials. Notwithstanding necessary limits, however, the parties may achieve additional flexibility by agreeing to discovery, bypassing the need for the Board to intervene and address such considerations.</font></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_seeking_written_comments_onUSPTO Seeking Written Comments on Virtual Marking for AIA Report prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_seeking_written_comments_on
Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:16:03 -0400Congressional Testimonycongressionalvirtualreportmarkingaia<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The AIA requires the USPTO to report on the effectiveness of virtual marking as an alternative to physically marking articles with patent information.&nbsp; The AIA contained a provision permitting a virtual mark as a means of providing public notice that an article is subject to patent protection in lieu of a physical mark on the patented article.&nbsp; The AIA mandates the USPTO to complete the report for Congress by September 16, 2014.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">To fulfill its AIA reporting requirement, the Office is seeking public comment on specific aspects of virtual marking: </font></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span><span style="FONT: 7pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></span></span />whether virtual marking is effective for giving public notice; </font></font></li>
<li><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span><span style="FONT: 7pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></span></span />whether virtual marking has limited or improved the public’s ability to access patent information; </font></font></li>
<li><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span><span style="FONT: 7pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></span></span />whether and what legal issues arise from virtual marking; and </font></font></li>
<li><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="2"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol"><span><span style="FONT: 7pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></span></span>whether virtual marking has any deficiencies.&nbsp; </font></font></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="FONT-FAMILY: &quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Comments on these topics, along with any other issues or experiences regarding virtual marking, may be emailed to </font><a href="mailto:virtualmarking@uspto.gov"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">virtualmarking@uspto.gov</font></a><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> by July 16, 2014.&nbsp; More information about the Virtual Marking Report is available here = </font><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-16/pdf/2014-14044.pdf"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-16/pdf/2014-14044.pdf</font></a><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">.</font>&nbsp; </span></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_scott_boalick_actingMessage from Scott Boalick, Acting Vice Chief Judge: PTAB AIA Trial Roundtables Are in Full Swing and There is Still Time to Attend One in a City Near Youprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_scott_boalick_acting
Mon, 5 May 2014 16:02:11 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshowsptabaia<p>The PTAB AIA Trial Roundtables are going strong with six down and two to go. The Board started the roundtables in mid-April at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria and since has visited New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Silicon Valley, and Seattle. This week, the Board winds down with the last two roundtables in Dallas on May 6 and Denver on May 8. <br /><br />The Board is conducting the roundtables for two purposes. First, the Board aims to educate stakeholders about the AIA trials. The Board has reviewed all trial filings made in the 18 months since the proceedings started and has many helpful lessons learned to share. For example, during each roundtable event, the Board conducts a mock conference call focused on motions for a claim amendment and for additional discovery to showcase how to succeed on these types of motions.</p>
<p>Second, the Board is eager to collect your feedback about the AIA trials. In particular, the Board is interested in your suggestions for how to improve the trial proceedings to solidify them as a faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. Stakeholders in Alexandria, New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Silicon Valley, and Seattle offered many thoughtful comments, and consistent themes are emerging on areas where changes may be necessary. The Board is compiling these suggestions and aims to carefully consider each one after the roundtables conclude.</p>
<p>The PTAB Roundtables likewise feature a panel discussion with top-notch AIA trial practitioners who have made many AIA trial filings. Panelists have included Peter Thurlow, Andrew Sommer, Erin Dunston, and Scott McKeown in Alexandria; Erika Arner, Rob Sterne, Vin McGreary, and Sharon Israel in New York City; Herb Hart, Kevin Noonan, Dorothy Whealan, and Tim Baumann in Chicago; Jon Beaupre, Brad Pedersen, Kara Stoll, and Karl Renner in Detroit; Kevin Greenleaf, Matt Smith, Dianna Devore, Michael Rosato, and Wayne Sobon in Silicon Valley; and John Vandenberg, Don Coulman, Brandon Stallman, and Rich Black in Seattle. These practitioners have shared their experiences and strategies for navigating the AIA trial waters. They also have fielded many probing questions about each stage of the trial process from petition filing to briefing to oral hearing tips to estoppel following the final written decision. </p>
<p>The PTAB is pleased to have received a strong stakeholder turn-out so far, and thanks the patent community for supporting the Roundtables. More than 600 stakeholders have joined in person, and more than 200 viewed the live webcast. If you want to learn and/or share feedback about the AIA trials or engage with the talented practitioner panelists, the PTAB encourages you to attend one of the two remaining roundtables in Dallas or Denver. The schedule with venue locations and directions is available on the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/ptab_aia_trial_roundtables_2014.jsp">PTAB Roundtable micro-site</a>. Also, the last roundtable on May 8 will be webcast live from Denver; viewing instruction and access information can be found on the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/ptab_aia_trial_roundtables_2014.jsp">PTAB Roundtable micro-site</a>.</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_ptab_message_how_toUSPTO Message From PTAB: How to Make Successful Claim Amendments in an AIA Trial Proceedingprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_ptab_message_how_to
Mon, 5 May 2014 15:57:50 -0400Congressional Testimony<p>In an AIA trial proceeding, such as an <em>inter partes</em> review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or a covered business method patent review (CBM), a patent owner may move to amend the claims of the challenged patent.&nbsp; The patent owner should not, however, approach the amendment process in an AIA trial proceeding like the amendment process to overcome an Office rejection filed during the prosecution of a patent application or during a reexamination or reissue proceeding.&nbsp; </p>
<p>During the prosecution of a patent application or during a reexamination or reissue proceeding, an applicant has a right to amend claims prior to a final Office action.&nbsp; Once an amendment is made, the burden then falls on the Examiner to show that the amended claims are unpatentable. &nbsp;In doing so, the Examiner undertakes a further prior art search, taking into account the added limitations. &nbsp;These aspects are different in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.</p>
<p>First, per the statute, a patent owner in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding only may “move” to amend the claims.&nbsp; The proposed amendment is not entered automatically as it would be during prosecution of a patent application or during a reexamination or reissue proceeding. </p>
<p>Second, the patent owner in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding bears the burden to show that the proposed substitute claims are patentable.&nbsp; The statute prescribes that the patent owner must move to amend the claims, and in so doing, as the moving party bears the burden to show entitlement to the relief requested by motion.&nbsp; An applicant bears no such burden during the prosecution of a patent application.&nbsp; Likewise, a patent owner bears no such burden due a reexamination or resissue proceeding.&nbsp; Rather, the Examiner has the burden to establish the unpatentability of any claim during examination, reexamination, and reissue.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Finally, the Board in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding conducts no prior art search and performs no examination.&nbsp; Instead, the Board’s grant of a motion to amend operates to add the proposed substitute claims directly to an issued patent without a search or examination.&nbsp; </p>
<p>To succeed on a motion to amend in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding given these distinguishing aspects, a patent owner should, with respect to each claim feature added by amendment, discuss what it knows what was previously known about the feature and about the level of ordinary skill in the art.&nbsp; A patent owner does not need to address individually all the items of prior art known to the patent owner.&nbsp; Nor does a patent owner need to address all of the prior art in existence at the time of filing. &nbsp;Rather, the patent owner should explain why the claim feature added by amendment, in combination with all the other features of the claim, would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the knowledge and skill level of the person of ordinary skill in the art.</p>
<p>Additionally, a patent owner must be mindful that it is not sufficient to establish that its amended claims are patentable over the prior art applied by the petitioner.&nbsp; The petitioner did not select the prior art identified in the petition with knowledge of patent owner’s proposed substitute claims.&nbsp; In fact, the references applied by the petitioner reasonably are not expected to be the closest prior art regarding the added feature in the amended claims.&nbsp; Thus, while it is necessary for the patent owner to distinguish its amended claims over the prior art applied by the petitioner, a patent owner should not limit its motion to amend to that art.&nbsp; Demonstrating patentable distinction over the prior art applied by the petitioner does not establish the overall patentability of the proposed claims sufficient to have them added to the involved patent.</p>
<p>Finally, a statement by the patent owner that the closest prior art it knows about was applied by the petitioner in the petition can be helpful if the supporting basis is explained in and established by the motion to amend.&nbsp; A conclusory statement to this effect would be of questionable value because its meaning depends on the patent owner’s subjective focus when making the statement.&nbsp; </p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_to_host_first_inventor2USPTO to Host First-Inventor-to-File Forum on April 1, 2014 (rescheduled from Monday, March 17, 2014) prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_to_host_first_inventor2
Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:06:26 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshowsfirst_inventor_to_filefirst_to_inventfitfaia<p>The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a public forum to discuss the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on the first anniversary of the FITF implementation. The forum will be held on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, at the USPTO headquarters, Madison Auditorium, in Alexandria, Virginia from 12:30 to 5 pm ET.&nbsp;Members of the public are invited to attend in person or via webcast (access information below).</p>
<p>The forum is intended to bring stakeholders together with USPTO subject matter experts to discuss the FITF provisions.&nbsp;It will begin with a thirty-minute informal meet-and-greet session, allowing participants to chat with the experts, followed by an informational program.</p>
<table align="center" style="WIDTH: 600px" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px"><strong>Time</strong></td>
<td style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Topic</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">1:00 PM to 1:15 PM</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Welcome</strong> <br /><em>Janet Gongola, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Opening Remarks</strong> <br /><em>Michelle K. Lee, Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">1:15 PM to 2:15 PM</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Will My Application Be Examined Under AIA (FITF) Or Not?</strong> <br /><em>Cassandra Spyrou, QAS in TC 2800</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">2:15 PM to 3:00 PM</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>FITF -- A Year in Review</strong> <br /><em>Tom Hughes, SPE in TC 3700</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">3:00 PM to 3:15 PM</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>BREAK</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">3:15 PM to 4:20 PM</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>FITF Overview and Tips on Responding to Prior Art Rejections</strong> <br /><em>Kathleen Fonda, Senior Legal Advisor</em> <br /><em>Office of Patent Legal Administration</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">4:20 PM to 4:30 PM</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Tour of the AIA (FITF) Website</strong> <br /><em>Kathleen Bragdon, QAS in TC 1600</em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="WIDTH: 209px">4:30 PM to 5:00 PM</td>
<td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Q&amp;A Panel Discussion </strong><em>(Hughes, Spyrou, Fonda, Bragdon)</em> <br /><em>Christopher Grant, QAS in TC 2400 (Moderator)</em></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Pre-registration is not required; seating is first-come, first-served.&nbsp; CLE is not available.&nbsp;<br /><u><strong>Webcast access instructions:</strong></u> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Topic: First Inventor to File First Anniversary Public Forum<br style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px" />Host: USPTO WebEx<br style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px" />Date and Time:<br style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px" />Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:30 pm, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00)<br style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px" />Event number: 992 988 777<br style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px" />Event password: 12345<br style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px" /></p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px"><strong>Event address for attendees: &nbsp;<a href="https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&amp;d=992988777">https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&amp;d=992988777</a></strong> <br style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px" /></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_to_host_first_inventor1USPTO to Host First-Inventor-to-File Forum on Monday, March 17, 2014prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_to_host_first_inventor1
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:08:14 -0500Implementation Activities/Roadshows<div>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a public forum to discuss the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on the first anniversary of the FITF implementation. The forum will be held on Monday, March 17, 2014, at the USPTO headquarters, Madison Auditorium, in Alexandria, Virginia from 12:30 to 5 pm ET.&nbsp; Members of the public are invited to attend in person or via webcast (access information below).</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">The forum is intended to bring stakeholders together with USPTO subject matter experts to discuss the FITF provisions.&nbsp; It will begin with a thirty-minute informal meet-and-greet session, allowing participants to chat with the experts, followed by an informational program covering the following topics:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Review of FITF filings made to date</font> </li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Explanation of whether/when an application will be examined under the FITF statutory framework</font> </li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Overview of the FITF statutory framework and tips on responding to prior art rejections</font> </li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Tour of the AIA (FITF) website</font> </li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Q&amp;A panel discussion</font> </li>
</ul>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Pre-registration is not required; seating is first-come, first-served.&nbsp; CLE is not available.&nbsp; </font></p>
<p><strong><u><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Webcast access instructions:</font></u></strong></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Event number: 996 792 614</font> </li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Event password: 12345</font> </li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Event address: </font><a href="https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&amp;d=996792614"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&amp;d=996792614</font></a> </li>
</ul>
</div>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/deep_dive_into_a_patentMessage From Administrative Patent Judges Sheridan Snedden And Jacqueline Bonilla: Deep Dive Into A Patent Owner Preliminary Response In An Inter Partes Review Proceeding Before The Patent Trial And Appeal Boardprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/deep_dive_into_a_patent
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:39:22 -0500Congressional Testimony<p><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Inter partes</em> review (IPR) proceeding provides an opportunity to challenge the patentability of claims in an issued patent for anticipation or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, based on prior art patents or printed publications. &nbsp;An IPR proceeding is conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and is divided into two stages: &nbsp;(i) a preliminary stage; and (ii) a trial stage.&nbsp; The preliminary stage begins with the filing of a petition to institute a trial.&nbsp; To proceed to the trial stage, a petition must demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail as to at least one of the challenged claims.&nbsp; A patent owner has a waivable right to file a preliminary response to the petition setting forth reasons why trial should not be instituted.&nbsp; The preliminary stage ends with a decision from the Board on whether to institute a trial.&nbsp;</font></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">A preliminary response provides a patent owner with an opportunity to be heard before the Board decides whether to institute trial.&nbsp; If the petition does not meet the standard set for instituting a trial, the petition will be denied, regardless of a preliminary response.&nbsp; That said, a preliminary response may help the Board when deciding whether to institute a trial.&nbsp; To provide the most benefit, a preliminary response should identify clear procedural and substantive reasons why the petition should be denied. &nbsp;To follow is a discussion of potential arguments that a patent owner might raise in a preliminary response, if appropriate, to help the Board’s consideration.&nbsp;</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"><strong>Petitioner Is Statutorily Barred from Pursuing an IPR </strong></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">A preliminary response may challenge the standing of a petitioner under 35 U.S.C. 315.&nbsp;</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Under 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1), a patent owner may provide evidence that the petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent, e.g., in a declaratory judgment action in district court, prior to filing the petition.&nbsp; Such action by the petitioner bars the institution of an IPR under 35 U.S.C. §&nbsp;315(a)(1). &nbsp;Board decisions providing guidance on the application of § 315(a)(1) include the following:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Anova Food, LLC v. Sandau</em>, IPR2013-00114, Paper No. 17 (PTAB) (a civil action for a declaratory judgment dismissed with prejudice filed by a predecessor-in-interest to the petitioner bars an IPR under § 315(a)(1)). </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Cyanotech Corporation v. The Board Of Trustees of the University of Illinois</em>, IPR2013-00401, Paper No. 30 (PTAB) (a civil action involuntarily dismissed without prejudice does not bar an IPR under § 315(a)(1)). </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Clio v. The Procter and Gamble Co</em>., IPR2013-00438, Paper No. 9 (PTAB) (a civil action voluntarily dismissed without prejudice does not bar an IPR under §&nbsp;315(a)(1)). </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd.</em>, IPR2012-00022, Paper No. 24 (PTAB) (a civil action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement is not a civil action challenging the validity of a patent barring an IPR under §&nbsp;315(a)(1)). </font></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Alternatively, a patent owner may provide evidence that the petitioner is barred from challenging the patent owner’s claims under 35 U.S.C. §&nbsp;315(b).&nbsp; As outlined in §&nbsp;315(b), the Board may not institute an IPR if the petition was filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in interest, or a privy, was served with an infringement complaint.&nbsp; Board decisions providing guidance on the application of § 315(b) include the following:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH &amp; KG</em>, IPR2012-00004, Paper No. 18 (PTAB) (a dismissal without prejudice nullifies the effect of service for purposes of § 315(b)). </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Volcano Corp</em>., IPR2013-00258, Paper No. 29 (PTAB) (a counterclaim is a “complaint alleging infringement of the patent” within the meaning of § 315(b)). </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Accord Healthcare v. Eli Lilly and Co</em>., IPR2013-00356, Paper No. 13 (PTAB) (service of a second complaint does not nullify the effect of a first served complaint for purposes of § 315(b)). </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>BioDelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. MonoSol RX, LLC</em>, IPR2013-00315, Paper No. 31 (PTAB) (challenged claims amended by a reexamination certificate issued after service of the complaint does not affect the “date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” under § 315(b)).&nbsp; </font></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"><strong>Highlight Weaknesses in Petitioner’s Case of Unpatentability </strong></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">The Board may not authorize a trial where the information presented in the petition fails to meet the requisite standard for instituting a trial—that is, fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claim.&nbsp; 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).&nbsp; Thus, it is helpful to the Board if a preliminary response explains carefully the weakest parts of petitioner’s unpatentability positions.&nbsp; For example, the preliminary response may include a detailed discussion or technical analysis relating to:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">How any asserted references are not, in fact, prior art; </font></li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">How asserted references lack at least one material limitation in one or more challenged claims; or </font></li>
<li><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">How an asserted reference teaches away from a combination of elements, as advocated by petitioner.&nbsp; <em>See,</em> <em>e.g.</em>, <em>Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc</em>., IPR2013-00132, Paper No. 9 (PTAB).&nbsp; </font></li>
</ul>
<p><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Petitioner’s Claim Construction is Improper</strong> </font></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">In an IPR proceeding, the Board construes claim terms according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.&nbsp; 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (“Trial Practice Guide”), 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012).&nbsp; Using this standard, a preliminary response may help the Board by carefully explaining claim construction positions.&nbsp; The patent owner may wish to point to the specification, dictionary definitions, as well as logic in relation to the claims as a whole, to support a conclusion that petitioner’s claim construction is, for example, unreasonably broad.&nbsp; In interpreting claims, however, one must take care to note the fine line between interpreting claims in light of the specification and improperly reading limitations into the claims from the specification.&nbsp; Absent claim language carrying a clear narrow meaning, the Board will not limit a claim based on the specification unless it expressly disclaims the broader definition.&nbsp; <em>See,</em> <em>e.g.</em>, <em>Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Verinata Health, Inc</em>., IPR2013-00277, Paper No. 10 (PTAB).</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"><strong>Petition Contains Prior Art or Arguments Were Previously Presented to the Office. </strong></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), a preliminary response may wish to address whether the same or substantially the same prior art and arguments were previously presented to the Office.&nbsp; Board decisions providing guidance on the application of § 325(d) include the following:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC</em>, IPR2013-00581, Paper No. 15 (PTAB) (denying a petition as to grounds based upon substantially the same prior art and arguments as set forth in a prior IPR petition). </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Oracle Corporation v. Clouding IP, LLC</em>, IPR2013-00100, Paper No. 8 (PTAB) (granting a petition where new arguments and supporting evidence were presented that shed a different light on references previously considered during prosecution). </font></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Petition Fails To Identify All Real Parties-in-Interest</strong> </font></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Under 35 U.S.C. §&nbsp;312(a)(2) and 37 CFR § 42.8, an IPR petition must identify all real parties-in-interest or privies.&nbsp; A preliminary response may help the Board by pointing out how the petition fails to identify all real parties-in-interest.&nbsp; The Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party-in-interest.&nbsp; Whether a non-party is a “real party-in-interest” or “privy” is a “highly fact-dependent question” that takes into account how courts have used the phrases generally to “describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion.”&nbsp; Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48759.&nbsp; One consideration is whether a non-party exercises, or could have exercised, control over a petitioner’s participation in an IPR proceeding.&nbsp; <em>Id</em>. at 48759-60, 48695.&nbsp; Other considerations may include whether a non-party, in conjunction with control, funds and directs the proceeding.&nbsp; <em>Id</em>. at 48760.&nbsp; Board decisions providing guidance on real party-in-interest or privy include the following:</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Butamax™&nbsp; Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc</em>., IPR2013-00214, Paper No. 11 (PTAB)(“‘common interest among litigation defendants seeking to invalidate or defend against enforcement of a patent . . . does not translate <em>ipso facto</em> into each defendant being a real party in interest where a request for reexamination is filed by only one of the defendants in the litigation’”) (citations omitted).&nbsp; </font></font></li>
<li><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Chimei Innolux Corporation v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd</em>., IPR2013-00068, Paper No. 7 (PTAB) (patent owner failed to provide persuasive evidence that each co-defendant in a related litigation exercised control and provided funding of the IPR petition). </font></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font size="2"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Supporting Evidence for the Preliminary Response</strong> </font></font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">The preliminary response may cite evidence supporting the patent owner’s contentions.&nbsp; Such evidence may include previously existing declarations, trial testimony, deposition testimony, and expert reports.&nbsp; A preliminary response may not, however, present new testimonial evidence (i.e., testimonial evidence prepared specifically for the purpose of the IPR proceeding) without authorization from the Board.&nbsp; Additionally, flooding the Board with evidence in a preliminary response is not helpful.&nbsp; Rather, a preliminary response should aid the Board in navigating evidence of record cleanly and quickly.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent8Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Update On The Frequency, Compliance, And Content Of Preissuance Submissionsprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent8
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:34:30 -0500Studies and Reportspreissuancethirdaiasubmissionparty<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Since the preissuance submission provision of the AIA went into effect seventeen months ago, members of the public have been able to submit prior art into another’s pending patent application if certain minimal requirements are satisfied.&nbsp; The Office has received a total of 1,414 preissuance submissions (also referred as “third-party submissions”) as of January 17, 2014.&nbsp; The submissions have arrived in all technology centers with the largest number in TC1700, which includes areas related to mechanical engineering, and the fewest in TC 2400, which includes areas related to electrical engineering.&nbsp; Figure 1 below shows the distribution of submissions across technology centers.&nbsp;</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><img alt="Number of Submissions Per Technology Center" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_ps_fig1.jpg" complete="true" complete="true" /></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Figure 1</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Proper Preissuance Submissions</strong> </font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Most third-party submissions received as of January 17, 2014, have met the eligibility requirements and been categorized by the Office as proper.&nbsp; Figure 2 below shows the percentage of proper and improper submissions, and Figure 3 below shows the proper submissions categorized by technology areas.&nbsp; The most common reasons for non-compliance relate to a failure to meet the timing, concise description of relevance, and signature requirements.&nbsp; Statistics show, however, that the number of improper submissions is leveling off, and in turn, that the number of proper submissions is rapidly increasing.</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><img alt="Total Preissuance Submissions" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_ps_fig2.jpg" complete="true" complete="true" /></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Figure 2</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><img alt="Number of Proper Submissions per Technology Center" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_ps_fig3.jpg" complete="true" complete="true" /></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Figure 3</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Distribution of Documents in Proper Preissuance Submissions</strong> </font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In the total number of proper preissuance submissions received as of January 17, 2014, the public presented 3,339 documents for consideration by the Office.&nbsp; Figure 4 below shows the submitted documents categorized by type.</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><img alt="Submitted Documents for Proper Cases" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_ps_fig4.jpg" complete="true" complete="true" /></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Figure 4</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Third-Party Submission Usage by Examiners</strong> </font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">When the Office receives a compliant preissuance submission in a particular application, the examiner must consider the submission as a matter of course.&nbsp; For the submissions made as of January 17, 2014, examiners have relied upon the prior art contained in them to make a rejection in 12.50% of the impacted applications.&nbsp; Figure 5 below depicts all the applications where a rejection issued after a proper submission was received.&nbsp; Additionally, in the applications where rejections were made based upon the art contained in a preissuance submission, the examiner rejected 50% of the time for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103; 18% of the time for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102; and the remainder of the time for both obviousness and anticipation.&nbsp; Figure 6 below features the applications having rejections using third-party submissions broken down by the type of rejection under the statute.&nbsp; Lastly, with respect to the type of rejection made after receipt of a proper third-party submission, most were First Actions on the Merits followed by Final Rejections.</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><img alt="Applications with Office Actions after receipt of Proper Third-Party Submission" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_ps_fig5.jpg" complete="true" complete="true" /></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Figure 5</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><img alt="Applications having Rejections (by Statute) and Using Third-Party Submissions" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_ps_fig6.jpg" complete="true" complete="true" /></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Figure 6</font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Crowdsourcing</strong> </font></p>
<p><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The public has shown interest in locating potential prior art for submission to the Office by utilizing crowdsourcing Web sites, such as Ask Patents by Stack Exchange.&nbsp; Indeed, members of the public have been posting requests for prior art in published applications on these sites.&nbsp; The Office feels confident that the number of proper third-party submissions will continue to increase as users become more familiar with the ability to make such submissions as well as the resources available to locate prior art such as crowdsourcing.&nbsp; The Office will continue to monitor the number third-party submissions and periodically update statistics on these filings.</font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><hr />
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/preissuance_submission_stats_feb2014.jsp">&gt;&gt; Link to data displayed in charts above.</a></font></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent7Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Request for Public Comments on Methods to Study Diversity of Patent Applicantsprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent7
Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:05:35 -0500Congressional Testimonyaiapatentsdiversity<p>The America Invents Act requires the USPTO to establish methods for studying the diversity of patent applicants.&nbsp; In March 2012, the USPTO mapped out an step-wise approach for doing so. &nbsp;&nbsp;As a first step, we shared our public USPTO patent data with the Census Bureau to obtain demographic information for patent applicants who previously filed applications with the Office during a select time period.</p>
<p>Now, as a second step, the agency is seeking public feedback about how effective different approaches would be for collecting diversity information from patent applicants in the future and what information would be appropriate to collect.&nbsp; Written comments are due by January 31, 2014.&nbsp; To read the USPTO’s full request for information, including how to provide comments, <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fr_diversity_12-1-13.pdf">click here</a>.</p>
<p>Once the agency has reviewed all input collected from the first match with Census data and the request for information, we will decide what further steps to take to be able to accurately describe patent applicant diversity information consist with the AIA.;</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent6Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Various Aspects Of Inventor's Oath/Declaration Provision Explained Including Updates To Certain USPTO Forms, Tips For Using An Application Data Sheet, And Reminders About Correcting Inventorship, etcprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent6
Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:50:04 -0500Miscellaneous<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Various Aspects Of Inventor's Oath/Declaration Provision Explained Including Updates To Certain USPTO Forms, Tips For Using An Application Data Sheet, And Reminders About Correcting Inventorship, Juristic Entities, And Real Parties In Interest</strong></font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In January 2013, we provided guidance regarding the use of a substitute statement, addressed the process for correcting inventorship and correcting/updating inventor names, and provided instructions for completing USPTO inventor’s oath or declaration forms. This current post provides information about new versions of some of the USPTO forms and tips for using an application data sheet.&nbsp; Additionally, we provide an alert about the fee for corrections of inventorship that took effect in March 2013.&nbsp; Finally, we provide a reminder about the need for juristic entities to be represented as well as the need to update the real party in interest at the time of issue fee payment.&nbsp; </font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>New Versions of Forms </strong></font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The Office has updated the Application Data Sheet, Substitute Statement, and Power of Attorney by Applicant forms for use in patent applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.&nbsp; Each of these three updates will be addressed in turn.&nbsp; The updated forms are available at </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/forms"><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">www.uspto.gov/forms</font></a><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">.</font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">First, the Application Data Sheet (ADS) form, PTO/AIA/14, has been updated to permit an assignee-applicant to be identified as an assignee on the patent application publication, in addition to being identified as the applicant. See the “Assignee Information including Non-Applicant Assignee Information” section of the PTO/AIA/14.&nbsp; This change to the ADS form was made in response to public feedback.&nbsp; Some customers want to be identified as both an applicant and an assignee, and this change to the form permits such dual identification. </font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Second, the Substitute Statement forms, PTO/AIA/02, PTO/AIA/04, and PTO/AIA/07, have been updated to provide for identification of the applicant (e.g., assignee) who is signing the statement on behalf of an inventor.&nbsp; Additionally, the forms have been updated to contain “authorization to act” language for use by an individual who may not have a title that carries apparent authority but who is authorized to act on behalf of a juristic entity applicant.&nbsp; A patent practitioner cannot sign a substitute statement on behalf of the applicant merely on the basis of having power of attorney in the application.&nbsp; In order to sign as the applicant, a patent practitioner must have binding authority (e.g., given by corporate resolution from a Board of Directors).&nbsp; See MPEP Section 324, V. for more information. </font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Third, the Power of Attorney by Applicant form, PTO/AIA/82, has been updated to provide a box where a juristic entity applicant may be identified and contains “authorization to act” language for use by an individual who may not have a title that carries apparent authority but who is authorized to act on behalf of a juristic entity applicant.&nbsp; For patent applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, only the applicant may grant a power of attorney.&nbsp; Thus, where the inventors are named as the applicant, an assignee would need to become the applicant by filing a request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) and include a corrected ADS per 37 CFR 1.76(c) and a statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c). </font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Tips for Using an Application Data Sheet </strong></font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">An ADS must identify with markings any changes in information from what was provided in a prior ADS or otherwise of record.&nbsp; New information must be underlined, and deleted information must be shown using strikethrough or brackets.&nbsp; The ADS can, however, be limited to showing only the section(s) of the ADS that contains the changed information.&nbsp; The requirement for identification of the information being changed applies to all application data sheets, regardless of the filing date of the application or proceeding under both versions of 37 CFR 1.76.&nbsp; Applicants do not have to use USPTO form PTO/AIA/14 to submit a corrected ADS and may instead create a corrected ADS in word processing software.&nbsp; Please note that, for an application filed before September 16, 2012, applicants must still file a Supplemental ADS with markings and include all of the sections, rather than a corrected ADS, to change the information.&nbsp; See MPEP 601.05 for more information. </font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>New Additional Fee for Correction or Change of Inventorship </strong></font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Where a request to correct or change the inventorship is filed under 37 CFR 1.48(a) after an Office action on the merits has been given or mailed, there is a fee that is due as of March 19, 2013, in addition to the processing fee, unless the request is accompanied by a statement that the request is due solely to the cancellation of claims in the application.&nbsp; See 37 CFR 1.48(c).&nbsp; The additional fee is set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(d).&nbsp; As a reminder, the changes to the correction of inventorship rule, 37 CFR 1.48, were effective on September 16, 2012, and apply to any request to correct inventorship filed on or after September 16, 2012, regardless of the application filing date.&nbsp; Where, however, a new inventor declaration is required due to an added inventor, the filing date of the application governs which version of 37 CFR 1.63 the declaration must comply with (e.g., for an application filed before September 16, 2012, the declaration would need to comply with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, and USPTO Form PTO/SB/01 could be used). </font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Reminder for Juristic Entities </strong></font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Juristic entities (this includes corporations and other non-human entities created by law and given certain legal rights) who seek to prosecute an application must do so via a registered patent practitioner, even if the juristic entity is the applicant.&nbsp; See 37 CFR 1.31.&nbsp; All papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner unless otherwise specified, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3).&nbsp; Only a limited number of documents may be signed by a juristic entity such as a terminal disclaimer, statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c), power of attorney, or substitute statement.&nbsp; This change in practice was effective September 16, 2012, and applies to any paper filed on behalf of a juristic entity on or after September 16, 2012, regardless of the filing date of the application or proceeding. </font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Reminder to Update the Real Party in Interest at Time of Payment of the Issue Fee</strong></font></p>
<p class=" "><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">For applicants other than the inventor(s), e.g., assignee-applicants, the Office is statutorily required to issue any patent to the real party in interest.&nbsp; Accordingly, 37 CFR 1.46(e) requires that the Office be notified if there has been any change in real party in interest, e.g., the assignee-applicant is no longer the real party in interest.&nbsp; The notification requirement applies no matter whether the non-inventor applicant was the applicant on initial filing or later became the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c). </font></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent5Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO Releases Video Recording of Second Anniversary AIA Forumprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent5
Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:11:23 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshowsforum<p class=" " style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN" style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The USPTO is pleased to release a video recording and slide presentations from the Second Anniversary AIA forum held on September 16, 2013. At the forum, USPTO subject matter experts from the Patent Business Unit and administrative patent judges from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discussed prioritized examination (aka Track One), preissuance submissions, inventor's oath/declaration, supplemental examination, micro-entity discount, first-inventor-to-file, and the administrative trials.<span>&nbsp; </span>Please check out the video and slides for tips for compliance and how to avoid pitfalls when making these various new AIA filings.</span></p>
<ul>
<li>
<div class=" " style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.25in"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; COLOR: red"><span><span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"><span lang="EN" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><a href="http://helix-1.uspto.gov/asxgen/2013/20130916_AIA_FINAL.wmv">Second Anniversary Forum Video</a> </span></span></span></span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div class=" " style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.25in"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; COLOR: red"><span><span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"><span lang="EN" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></span></span></span></span><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_second_anniversary_forum_slides20130916.pdf"><span lang="EN" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Second Anniversary Forum Slides</span></a><span lang="EN" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <em>[PDF-4 mb]</em></span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div class=" " style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.25in"><span lang="EN" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></span><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fitf_workshop_demo20130913.pdf"><span lang="EN" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font color="#0000ff">First-Inventor-to-File Workshop Materials</font></span></a><span lang="EN" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <em>[PDF]</em> </span></div>
</li>
</ul>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent4Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Options for Expedited Patent Application Examination, Including Prioritized Examination Under The AIAprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent4
Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:58:38 -0400Miscellaneousexamination<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">The USPTO currently offers three alternative programs that provide applicants with the opportunity to expedite examination of their patent applications.<span>&nbsp; </span>These three programs are: (i) Prioritized Examination (also known as “Track One”), which was introduced by the AIA; (ii) Accelerated Examination (AE); and (iii) the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH).<span>&nbsp; </span>By taking advantage of these expedited examination processes, applicants may capitalize on their exclusive patent rights sooner than through conventional examination, especially in areas where the technology is rapidly evolving.</font></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">More specifically, in the Prioritized Examination and the AE programs, applicants receive a first action on the merits in less than 5 months and a final decision from the examiner within 12 months from the grant of the request.<span>&nbsp; </span>In the PPH program, applicants receive a first action on the merits within 2 to 3 months from the grant of the request. <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>The chart below illustrates the first action pendency data of the three programs as compared with conventional examination for fiscal year 2013.</font></p>
<p align="center" class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"><img align="middle" alt="Graph of FY 2013 First Action Pendency" src="http://tampa-wip.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/blog_fy13_fapendencychart.jpg" border="0" hspace="0" complete="true" complete="true" /></font></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">To enter into one of the agency’s expedited examination programs, patent applicants must satisfy certain requirements largely focused on the size of the application as well as payment of an additional fee.<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In the case of Prioritized Examination, applicants can submit no more than 4 independent claims and no more than 30 total claims.<span>&nbsp; </span>Applicants also must pay a $4000 fee, which is reduced to $2000 for small entities and to $1000 for micro entities.<span>&nbsp; </span>Applicants further must electronically file their applications, and the applications must be complete on filing.<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">In the case of AE, applicants can submit no more than 3 independent claims and no more than 20 total claims.<span>&nbsp; </span>Applicants also must pay a $140 fee, which is reduced to $70 for small entities and to $35 for micro entities.<span>&nbsp; </span>Applicants further must submit pre-examination search documents and an “examination support document.”<span>&nbsp; </span>The requirement for pre-examination search documents and an “examination support document” is a key distinction between AE and Prioritized Examination.</font></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In the case of PPH, there are no petition fees or limits on the number of claims, unlike for Prioritized Examination and AE.<span>&nbsp; </span>However, a foreign patent office that participates in the PPH must have found at least one claim to be allowable for the application to receive expedited examination in the USPTO. <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>Currently, there are more than two dozen participating foreign patent offices. <span>&nbsp;</span></font></font></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font size="2"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Here is a quick reference table summarizing the features and requirements of the three expedited examination programs available at the USPTO.<span>&nbsp; </span>For more information about any individual programs, the Office has created specialized micro-site.<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Fast Examination Table: </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fast_exam_table20130912v1017.pdf"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fast_exam_table20130912v1017.pdf</font></a></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Prioritized Examination: </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp</font></a><u><font color="#0000ff" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"><span class=" ">.</span></font></u></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">ccelerated Examination: </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp"><font color="#0000ff" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp</font></a></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">Patent Prosecution Highway: </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp</font></a><span class=" "><u><font color="#0000ff" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">.</font></u></span></p>
<p class=" " style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt">&nbsp;</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent3Message from Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO to Host Second Anniversary AIA Forum on September 16, 2013prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent3
Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:48:04 -0400Miscellaneous<p class="Body1"><font face="Helvetica"><span><font color="#000000">The USPTO is pleased to announce that there will be an AIA forum on September 16, 2013 to commemorate the second anniversary of the new patent law.<span>&nbsp; </span>The forum will be held on the USPTO's Alexandria campus in the Madison North Auditorium from 1 to 5 pm<span>&nbsp; </span>The forum also will be webcast (access information below).<span>&nbsp; </span></font></span></font></p>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>USPTO subject matter experts from the Patent Business Unit and administrative patent judges from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will discuss various provisions of the new patent law, focusing on filings made over the past several months with tips for compliance and how to avoid pitfalls.<span>&nbsp; </span>In particular, the agency will address prioritized examination (aka Track One), preissuance submissions, inventor's oath/declaration, supplemental examination, micro-entity discount, first-inventor-to-file, and the administrative trials.<span>&nbsp; </span>The agency likewise will field questions from the audience about each of these topics. </span></font></p>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>Please mark the date on your calendar, and join us for the most current recent updates on the new patent law. The forum is free with seating on a first-come, first-served basis.</span></font></p>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span></span></font></p><span>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/agenda_aia_forum20130916.pdf"><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&gt;&gt; Agenda</font></a><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> [PDF] </font></li>
<li><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Document 1: </font><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/blog/roller-ui/authoring/aia_second_anniversary_forum_slides20130916.pdf"><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Second Anniversary Forum Slides</font></a><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font color="#000000"> [PDF - 4 mb] </font><font color="#6499ff"><em><strong>UPDATED 9/16/2013</strong></em></font></font></li>
<li><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Document 2: </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fast_exam_table20130912.pdf"><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Fast Examination Options</font></a><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> [PDF] </font></li>
<li><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Document 3: </font><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fitf_workshop_demo20130913.pdf"><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">First-Inventor-to-File Workshop Materials</font></a><font color="#000000" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> [PDF] </font></li>
</ul><span>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>Webcast Access Information:</span></font></p><blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr">
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>Event number: 991 788 621</span></font></p>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>Event password: 123456</span></font></p></blockquote>
<p class="Body1"><font face="Helvetica"><span><font color="#000000">Event address for attendees: </font><a href="https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?d=991788621&amp;t=a"><font color="#000000">https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?d=991788621&amp;t=a</font></a></a /></span></font></p>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>-------------------------------------------------------</span></font></p>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>Teleconference information</span></font></p><blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr">
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208</span></font></p>
<p class="Body1"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span>Access code: 991 788 621</span></font></p></blockquote>
<p><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></p></span></span>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent2Message from Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO Examination of an Application Under Pre-AIA (First-To-Invent) Or AIA (First-Inventor-To-File) Law and Submission of Compliant 1.55/1.78 Statements for Transition Applicationsprineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent2
Fri, 28 Jun 2013 18:10:36 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshowstransition_applicationaiafirst_to_inventfirst_inventor_to_file<div class="section">
<p>Since the March 16, 2013 effective date of the first-inventor-to-file provision, the USPTO and patent applicants are prosecuting patent applications under two legal frameworks for prior art—first-to-invent provisions and first-inventor-to-file provisions.&nbsp; There are three possible scenarios that may arise in terms of which framework to apply to an application.&nbsp; These three scenarios are depicted in the graphic below.&nbsp;</p>
<ul>
<li>First, as shown in the far left green circle, if an application was filed before March 16, 2013 and all domestic benefit or foreign priority claims made in the application are to applications filed before March 16, 2013, then the application is subject to examination under the pre-AIA law (first-to-invent). </li>
<li>Second, as shown in the far right blue circle, if an application is filed after March 16, 2013 and all domestic benefit or foreign priority claims made in the application are to applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, then the application is subject to examination under the AIA law (first-inventor-to-file). </li>
<li>Third, as shown in the middle red circle, if an application is filed after March 16, 2013 but all domestic benefit or foreign priority claims made in the application are to applications filed before March 16, 2013, then the applicant must file a statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 (1.55/1.78 Statement) with the Office if the application contains claims to subject matter not supported by the domestic benefit or foreign priority filing and therefore should be examined under the AIA law (first-inventor-to-file).&nbsp; The USPTO has designated an application that falls into this third scenario as a &quot;transition&quot; application, and they are the focus here. </li>
</ul>
<p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><img alt="Chart to determine if AIA applies based on filing and priority/benefit claim dates" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_fitf_vs_fti_chart.png" border="0" hspace="0" complete="true" complete="true" /></p>
<p><strong>SCOPE OF 1.55/1.78 STATEMENT IN TRANSITION APPLICATION</strong> </p>
<p>In filing a 1.55/1.78 Statement, an applicant simply needs to state that the application contains at least one claim<s>s</s> that does not find support in one of the applications to which benefit or priority is sought.&nbsp; Here are example statements that an applicant could file:</p>
<ul>
<li>This application filed on or after March 16, 2013 which claims benefit or priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013,&nbsp;contains one or more claims NOT entitled to a filing date before March 16, 2013. </li>
<li>This application&nbsp; claims benefit or priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013,&nbsp; and contains one or more claims&nbsp; NOT entitled to a filing date before March 16, 2013. </li>
<li>This application contains one or more claims&nbsp; NOT entitled to a filing date before March 16, 2013. </li>
<li>This application contains a claim having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. </li>
</ul>
<p>Notably, the applicant is not required to identify the subject matter lacking support in the pre-March 16 domestic benefit or foreign priority filings.&nbsp; Nor is the applicant required to identify the specific claims drawn to the newly-added subject matter.&nbsp; To make it easy for an applicant to provide a 1.55/1.78 Statement to the Office, the USPTO has included a 1.55/1.78 Statement on the Application Data Sheet (ADS) with a check box that an applicant can use and thereby meet the statement requirement.&nbsp; More information about the use of the 1.55/1.78 Statement on an ADS is discussed below.</p>
<p><strong>RATIONALE FOR 1.55/1.78 STATEMENT IN TRANSITION CASE</strong> </p>
<p>The Office is requiring applicants to file 1.55/1.78 Statements for transition applications when there are newly-added claims that lack support in an application to which benefit or priority is sought that is filed before March 16, 2013, so that examiners apply the correct legal framework (i.e., first-to-invent or first-inventor-to-file) from the outset of examination.&nbsp; On the face of a transition application, it appears by virtue of the pre- March 16, 2013 domestic benefit or foreign priority claim<s>s</s> that the application is subject to examination under pre-AIA law (first-to-invent).&nbsp; However, because the application was filed after March 16, 2013, it could be subject to examination under the &nbsp;AIA (first-inventor-to-file) if any newly-claimed subject matter is not supported by the domestic benefit or foreign priority filings.&nbsp; Because USPTO cannot readily ascertain whether the application contains claims to such newly-added subject matter, an applicant must specify to the Office whether the AIA (first-inventor-to-file) applies via a 1.55/1.78 Statement.&nbsp; Absent a 1.55/1.78 Statement from an applicant, the Office will examine the application under the pre-AIA law (first-to-invent).</p>
<p><strong>USE OF CHECK BOX ON ADS TO MAKE 1.55/1.78 STATEMENT</strong> </p>
<p>By marking the check box on an Application Data Sheet (ADS) for a 1.55/1.78 Statement, an applicant is designating that the application should be examined under the AIA (first-inventor-to-file) by virtue of the inclusion of claimed subject matter which is not supported in an earlier filed application to which priority or benefit has been made.&nbsp; Indeed, as shown in the excerpt from an ADS below, there is a notation accompanying the 1.55/1.78 Statement emphasizing that the application will be examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA if the check box is marked.</p>
<p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><img alt="FITF checkbox" src="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia_fitf_checkbox.png" border="0" hspace="0" complete="true" complete="true" /></p>
<p>Applicants may want to carefully review application filings made since the March 16, 2013 effective date of the first-inventor-to-file provision to ensure that they correctly used the 1.55/1.78 Statement check box on the ADS.&nbsp; The USPTO advises applicants who filed applications after March 16, 2013, to conduct this review because some applicants appear to have erroneously marked the 1.55/1.78 Statement check box on the ADS.&nbsp; Specifically, some applicants have filed applications as continuations or divisionals of parent applications that were filed before March 16, 2013, and at the same time, marked the 1.55/1.78 Statement check box on the ADS.&nbsp; These two actions appear to be in conflict.&nbsp; Identification of an application as a continuation or divisional of a parent application filed before March 16, 2013 makes the application subject to pre-AIA law (first-to-invent).&nbsp; &nbsp;By contrast, selection of the 1.55/1.78 Statement check box makes the application subject to the AIA (first-inventor-to-file).&nbsp; In such conflict situations, the USPTO is contacting the applicant to ascertain the propriety of the statement made via the checkbox.&nbsp; Additionally, applicants must correct the error—be it the identification of the application as a continuation-in-part or the de-selection of the 1.55/1.78 Statement check box.</p>
<p><strong>WHAT TO DO IF A 1.55/1.78 STATEMENT WAS FILED IN ERROR</strong> </p>
<p>In the situation where an applicant erroneously identified a transition application as claiming subject matter not supported by the earlier filed domestic benefit or foreign priority application filing which was before March 16, 2013, the applicant can correct the error by filing a separate paper to rescind the statement.&nbsp; If the applicant files the rescission electronically, the applicant should select the document description “Make/Rescind AIA (First Inventor to File) 1.55/1.78 Stmnt” to properly index the paper.&nbsp; The USPTO does not have a specific rescission form; an applicant merely needs to state that all the claims in the application find support before March 16, 2013 and therefore that the 1.55/1.78 Statement previously submitted to the Office was filed in error. &nbsp;</p>
</div>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent1Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO Releases First-Inventor-to-File Training Materials, Including Videos prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent1
Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:18:58 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshowstoaiainventorfirstfile<p>As you all know, the America Invents Act became law eighteen months ago on September 16, 2011, to modernize the U.S. patent system.&nbsp; One of the provisions in the AIA converted the United States to a first-inventor-to-file system from a first-to-invent system.&nbsp; The first-inventor-to-file provisions become effective on March 16, 2013—the eighteen month anniversary of the AIA.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The USPTO has implemented the first-inventor-to-file provisions through a series of rules as well as a guidance document.&nbsp; We presently are conducting first-inventor-to-file training for our examiners, and I’d like to share a bit about that training with you.&nbsp;</p>
<p>During the months of March and April 2013, we are educating our examiners on the new statutory framework for prior art found in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as well as explaining to them how to identify whether an application is subject to examination under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA or the first-to-invent provisions of pre-AIA law.&nbsp; We have created two videos and a one-hour live lecture to share this information.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This summer, we will delve deeper into the first-inventor-to-file provisions with more comprehensive training conducted with smaller groups of examiners.&nbsp; In particular, we will detail our first-inventor-to-file final rules along with numerous practical applications, among other topics.&nbsp; And between March and the summer, we will offer “just-in-time” training for those examiners who have applications on their dockets to be examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions.&nbsp; In case you are interested, we are posting all of our examiner training materials on the AIA micro-site on the “Patents Examination” page under the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/patents.jsp#heading-10"><strong>“First-Inventor-to-File”</strong></a><strong> </strong>category:</p>
<p>The agency has selected this staged training process for distinct reasons.&nbsp; First, most examiners will not have an application to examine under the first-inventor-to-file provisions for several months.&nbsp; Second, we aim to solidify the first-inventor-to-file subject matter for examiners by using an iterative approach.&nbsp; That way, examiners will have multiple opportunities to master the subject matter and obtain answers to their questions.</p>
<p>In addition to training our examiners on the first-inventor-to-file provisions, we want to help all of you understand the new prior art framework.&nbsp; To do so, we have prepared a series of four videos.&nbsp; Each video explains a particular aspect of the new prior art regime.&nbsp; More specifically, the first two videos address what constitutes prior art under the AIA, and the second two videos cover exceptions that remove prior art from being available to apply against a claimed invention.&nbsp; Each video is less than 5 minutes and distills the new prior art framework into its basic components for easy understanding.&nbsp;</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA8_4H156fk" jquery1372454479082="4"><strong>Prior Art Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)</strong></a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0qQHTLdRRA" jquery1372454479082="5"><strong>Exceptions to Prior Art Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) </strong></a>&nbsp;</li>
<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rL01ItMHvI" jquery1372454479082="6"><strong>Prior Art Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)</strong></a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzVrH71c0nc" jquery1372454479082="7"><strong>Exceptions to Prior Art Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)</strong></a> </li>
</ul>
<p>Lastly, remember that the agency has a special AIA Help Center to answer your first-inventor-to-file questions.&nbsp; You can either call 1-855-HELP-AIA (1-855-435-7242) or email the Help Center at <a href="mailto:HELPAIA@uspto.gov">HELPAIA@uspto.gov</a>.&nbsp;</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reform3From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO Releases Statistics on Filings for New Proceedings That Became Available in September 2012 prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reform3
Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:02:57 -0500Miscellaneousexaminationpreissuanceiprcbmsupplementalstatistics<p>Over the past five months, the USPTO has received various filings for the provisions that became effective on September 16, 2012.&nbsp; These filings include preissuance submissions, requests for supplemental examination, and petitions for both inter partes review and covered business method review.&nbsp; To enable you to track these filings, we have added a new page on the AIA micro-site called “Statistics.”&nbsp; This page features information about the number of raw filings for each new procedure.&nbsp; As you will see from the data shown on the Statistics page, stakeholders are incorporating all of the new procedures into their practices as the number of filings generally are on the rise.&nbsp; Here is a link to the Statistics page for you to check out: <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/statistics.jsp">http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/statistics.jsp</a> </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_michael_tierney_leadMessage from Michael Tierney, Lead Judge: Tips for Filing Petitions and Making Successful Arguments Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_michael_tierney_lead
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:50:10 -0500Miscellaneousiprpgrptabcbm<p>As of September 16, 2012, three new proceedings became available before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for challenging the patentability of an issued patent.&nbsp; These proceedings are called an Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method Patent Review (CBM).&nbsp; Patents issuing from applications subject to the first-inventor-to-file AIA provisions (on or after March 16, 2013) may be challenged in an IPR, PGR, or CBM.&nbsp; However, generally patents issuing from applications subject to the first-to-invent provisions may be challenged only in IPR or CBM.&nbsp; This post seeks to clarify the formalities for filing a successful petition and explain how to make persuasive arguments in a petition.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Comparison of IPR, PGR, and CBM Petitions</strong> </p>
<p>It is important to understand the parameters when filing a petition for an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.&nbsp;</p>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th width="134" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">&nbsp;</th>
<th width="260" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8">
<p align="center"><strong>IPR</strong> </p>
</th>
<th width="209" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8">
<p align="center"><strong>PGR</strong> </p>
</th>
<th style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; WIDTH: 192px">
<p align="center"><strong>CBM</strong> </p>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; WIDTH: 134px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>When is a Petition Ripe?</strong></td>
<td width="260" style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p>Cannot be filed until after the later of:</p>
<ol type="a">
<li>9 months after the grant of a patent or issuance of a reissue of a patent; or </li>
<li>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The date of termination of any post-grant review of the patent.&nbsp; </li>
</ol>
</td>
<td width="209" style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">On or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent or issuance of a reissue patent.</td>
<td style="WIDTH: 192px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p><u>Patents under First-to-Invent Provisions:</u> </p>
<ul>
<li>Upon issuance </li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><u>Patents under First-Inventor-to-File Provisions:</u> </p>
<ul>
<li>9 months after the issuance of a patent that is subject to the first inventor-to-file provisions. </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="134" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Who Files a Petition?</strong></td>
<td width="469" style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" colspan="2">A person who is not the patent owner and has not previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent may petition.</td>
<td style="WIDTH: 192px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">Only a person who is sued or charged with infringement of a covered business method patent may petition for a covered business method review of the patent.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; WIDTH: 134px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Grounds for Filing Challenge to Patent?</strong></td>
<td width="260" style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">May request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of a patent on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications</td>
<td width="209" style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">May request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) relating to invalidity (i.e.,&nbsp; §101, novelty, obviousness, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, but not best mode).</td>
<td style="WIDTH: 192px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p><u>Patents under First-to-Invent Provisions:</u> </p>
<ul>
<li>Limited prior art shall apply </li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><u>Patents under First-Inventor-to-File Provisions:</u> </p>
<ul>
<li>Any ground </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="134" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Statutory &amp; Regulatory Requirements?</strong></td>
<td style="WIDTH: 661px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" colspan="3">
<p><u>Statutory:</u> </p>
<ol type="a">
<li>identify all real parties in interest; </li>
<li>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; identify all claims challenged &amp; all grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based; </li>
<li>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; provide copies of evidence relied upon; and </li>
<li>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; payment of required fee </li>
</ol>
<p><u>Regulatory:</u> </p>
<ol type="a">
<li>identify the grounds for standing; </li>
<li>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; provide a claim construction for each challenged claim; </li>
<li>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; specifically explain the grounds for unpatentability; and </li>
<li>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; specifically explain the relevance of evidence relied upon. </li>
</ol>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="134" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Can a Patent Owner File a Preliminary Response to a Petition?</strong></td>
<td style="WIDTH: 661px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" colspan="3">
<p align="center">Yes – within three months</p>
<p align="center">&nbsp;</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="134" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top"><strong>Petition Page Limit?</strong></td>
<td width="260" style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p align="center">60 double-spaced pages&nbsp;<br />(single spacing for Claim Charts)</p>
</td>
<td style="WIDTH: 401px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" colspan="2">
<p align="center">80 double-spaced pages<br />(single spacing for Claim Charts)</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Page Limits for Petitions, Motions, Patent Owner Responses, and Oppositions</strong> </p>
<p>Page limits assist the Board in effectively and timely managing proceedings. The page limit for a petition is either sixty or eighty pages, depending on the type; the page limit for a motion is fifteen pages.&nbsp; For both petitions and motions, the page limit does not include a table of contents, a table of authorities, a certificate of service, or appendix of exhibits. However, it does include any statement of material facts to be admitted or denied in support of the petition or motion. Patent owner responses have page limits that match the petition or motion they address, but the page limits do not include admissions of denials of a petitioner’s statement of material facts. If a party would like more pages, they must file a motion requesting waiver of the page limits.</p>
<p><strong>Requests for Waiving Page Limits</strong> </p>
<p>Irrespective of the type of proceeding, parties involved in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding must comply with the stated page limits; however, a filing party may accompany their submission with a motion to waive the page limits.&nbsp; The party requesting a waiver must clearly demonstrate that waiving the page limits is in the “interests of justice,” which is a higher standard than merely showing “good cause.”&nbsp; Each motion should identify how the particular case facts demonstrate a need to waive the page limit, and specifically how that need is in the interest of justice.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This higher standard means that exceptions to the page limits will not be commonly granted for broad or generic reasons (e.g., additional pages being used on the primary target claims because the patent is being challenged on multiple grounds and thus it is in the interest of justice to respond or explain all grounds). Similar to all other legal writing, a quality submission (i.e., a petition, patent owner’s response, or patent owner’s preliminary response) should be concise, articulate, and supported by facts.&nbsp; If the motion seeking to waive the page limits is denied, the proposed petition exceeding the page limit may be expunged or returned.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Making Written Arguments Before the Patent Trial &nbsp;and Appeal Board</strong> </p>
<p>A petitioner may challenge a patent on multiple grounds. However, the petitioner must expressly identify the differences between a challenged claim and the prior art, especially when making assertions of obviousness. Additionally, for obviousness, a petitioner should address the scope and content of the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.&nbsp;</p>
<p>A petitioner may rely upon multiple prior art references in challenging a claim, provided each reference is specifically explained and applied to claim limitations for which a claim construction is to be provided by the petitioner.&nbsp; Where a plurality of prior art references exist, it is essential for a petitioner to avoid redundancy when applying the prior art to the claims at issue. A petitioner avoids redundancy by explaining why one reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects than another reference, and vice versa. Furthermore, a petition should specify whether the grounds of unpatentability differ due to alternative claim constructions or alternative findings of fact. Thus, a successful argument carefully applies prior art references by avoiding redundancy through complete explanations.&nbsp; Additionally, where references are to be combined, a successful argument explicitly explains the reasons supporting the proposed combination.</p>
<p>For the Representative Order discussing redundancy grounds, please see <em>CBM2012-00003, Order (Redundant Grounds), Paper 7</em>, Oct. 25, 2012, <em>available at </em><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_order_cbm2012-00003_order_(redundant_grounds)_paper_7_(10-25-12).pdf" jquery1361821157865="7">http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_order_cbm2012-00003_order_(redundant_grounds)_paper_7_(10-25-12).pdf</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p>For an explanation of the grounds available for post-grant review challenges, please see Director David Kappos’ Public Blog, <em>PTAB and Patentability Challenges</em> (Sep. 24, 2012 04:44 PM), <em>available at</em> <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_and_patentability_challenges">http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_and_patentability_challenges</a>.</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patentFrom Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Date Change for Public Forum to Discuss First-Inventor-to-File, Micro Entity, and Patent Fee Final Rules prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_janet_gongola_patent
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:44:30 -0500Implementation Activities/Roadshowsfitfentitymicroinventorfeespatent<p>The USPTO is hosting a public forum on Friday, March 15<sup><font size="2">th</font></sup> in the Madison Auditorium on the USPTO’s Alexandria campus from 1:00 to 4 PM Eastern Daylight Time to share information about its final rules for the first-inventor-to-file, micro entity, and patent fee final rules.&nbsp; The forum will be webcast on the AIA micro-site.&nbsp; Originally, the USPTO planned this forum to occur on Friday, March 8<sup><font size="2">th</font></sup> from 10:00 AM to 12:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time.&nbsp; The agency is changing the date/time of the forum to enable webcast participation by West coast stakeholders.</p>
<p>Here is the event agenda along with instructions for viewing the webcast.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Micro_Entity_Patent_Fees_Forum_Agenda_March_2013.pdf"><strong>First-Inventor-to-File, Micro Entity, and Patent Fee Public Forum Agenda</strong></a> </p>
<p><strong>WebEx Webinar Access Information</strong> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px"><strong>Event number</strong>: 996 254 133<br /><strong>Event password</strong>: 123456<br /><strong>Event address for attendees: <a href="https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?d=996254133&amp;t=a">https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?d=996254133&amp;t=a</a></strong> </p>
<p>I encourage you to attend the public forum so that you will understand the final rules and guidance for the first-inventor-to-file, micro entity, and patent fee provisions.&nbsp; You also will have the opportunity to ask questions and interact with agency experts on these topics.</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reform2From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO Publishes Final Rules and Guidance to Implement First-Inventor-to-File Provision prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reform2
Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:47:45 -0500Rulemakingfiletofinalfitfinventorfirstrulesguidance<p>On February 14, 2013, the USPTO published final rules and guidance in the Federal Register implementing the first-inventor-to-file provision.&nbsp; This provision becomes effective on March 16, 2013.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Final_Rule_FR_2-14-2013.pdf"><strong>First-Inventor-to-File Final Rules (78 Fed. Reg. 11024, February 14, 2013)</strong></a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Final_Guidelines_FR_2-14-2013.pdf"><strong>First-Inventor-to-File Final Guidance (78 Fed. Reg. 11059, February 14, 2013)</strong></a></li>
</ul>
<p>Publication of the first-inventor-to-file final rules and guidance concludes the agency’s rulemaking for provisions that become effective in March 2013.&nbsp; It likewise concludes the agency’s rulemaking for the America Invents Act.</p>
<p>To discuss the first-inventor-to-file final rules and guidance, the agency is hosting a public forum on Friday, March 8, 2013 in the Madison Auditorium on the USPTO’s Alexandria campus.&nbsp; The forum will run from 10:00 AM to 12:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time and will be webcast on the AIA micro-site. Instructions for viewing the webcast are forthcoming.&nbsp; In addition to the first-inventor-to-file final rules and guidance, the agency will address its new patent service fees and the micro entity discount, both of which go into effect on March 19, 2013.&nbsp; I encourage you to attend this forum, learn about the last provisions of the America Invents to be implemented, and have the opportunity to ask questions.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reform1From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Tips for Using a Substitute Statement, Correcting Inventorship, Changing/Updating Inventor Names or Their Order, and Filing USPTO Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Forms prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reform1
Mon, 7 Jan 2013 17:04:31 -0500Miscellaneousaiaoathdeclarationinventor's<p class="entryContent">&nbsp;</p>
<p>The inventor’s oath or declaration provision, which became effective on September 16, 2012, streamlined many aspects of filing an inventor’s oath or declaration.&nbsp; In an earlier post from November 2012, we discussed the simplified content required to be included in an inventor's oath or declaration and delayed submission of an inventor’s oath or declaration, among other topics.&nbsp; Here, we offer additional guidance regarding the use of a substitute statement, which can be filed in lieu of an oath or declaration.&nbsp; Additionally, we address the process for correcting inventorship and changing/updating inventor names or the order of the names of joint inventors.&nbsp; Lastly, we provide instructions for completing select USPTO inventor oath or declaration forms as well as five example fact patterns with an explanation of how to determine what inventor’s oath or declaration related documents must be filed with the USPTO for each.</p>
<p><strong>Use of a Substitute Statement&nbsp;</strong> </p>
<p>Section 4(a) of the AIA amends 35 U.S.C. § 115 to allow a non-inventor applicant to file a substitute statement in place of an inventor’s oath or declaration under permitted circumstances in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.&nbsp; The permitted circumstances include where an inventor is deceased, legally incapacitated, cannot be located after diligent effort, or refuses to sign an oath or declaration.&nbsp; A non-inventor applicant who may file a substitute statement includes: (i) the legal representative (e.g., executor, administrator, heirs) of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.43; (ii) a joint inventor(s) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.45 on behalf of an inventor who refuses to join in a patent application or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort under 37 C.F.R. § 1.45; (iii) an assignee or obligated assignee under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46; or (iv) a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter after the USPTO grants an applicant’s petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The table below summarizes the requirements that a non-inventor applicant must satisfy for a substitute statement: </p>
<table width="100%" align="left" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; WIDTH: 277px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p align="center"><strong>Requirements for a Substitute Statement</strong> </p>
</td>
<td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p align="center"><strong>Content</strong> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; WIDTH: 277px">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Demonstrate compliance with oath or declaration requirements in<br />37 CFR 1.63(a) per 37 CFR 1.64(b)(1)</p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">
<ul>
<li>Identify the inventor or joint inventor; </li>
<li>Identify the application; </li>
<li>Contain a statement relating to the inventor being an original inventor; and </li>
<li>Contain a statement that the application was made or authorized to be made by the person executing the substitute statement. </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; WIDTH: 277px">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Identify who is executing the substitute statement per<br />37 CFR 1.64(b)(2)</p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">
<ul>
<li>Identify the person executing the substitute statement; </li>
<li>Identify the relationship (<em>e.g</em>., assignee) that the executing person has with the inventor or joint inventor; and </li>
<li>Provide the residence and mailing address (where mail is customarily received) of the person signing the substitute statement UNLESS such information is supplied in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) complying with 37 CFR 1.76. </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; WIDTH: 277px">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Identify why the executing person may submit a substitute statement per 37 CFR 1.64(b)(3)</p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Identify the permitted circumstances under which the executing person is filing the substitute statement (<em>i.e.</em>, whether the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, cannot be found or reached after a diligent effort was made, or has refused to execute the oath or declaration)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; WIDTH: 277px">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Identify information about each inventor per 37 CFR 1.64(b)(4)</p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">
<ul>
<li>Supply an ADS complying with 37 CFR 1.76;<br /><br />- OR-<br /></li>
<li>Identify each inventor by their legal name; and </li>
<li>For each inventor who is not deceased or under a legal incapacity, identify the last known mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and the last known residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail. </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; WIDTH: 277px">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Acknowledge penalties and punishment per 37 CFR 1.64(e)</p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Contain an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in a substitute statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Notably, there is certain information that a non-inventor applicant need not include with a substitute statement.&nbsp; First, a non-inventor applicant need not submit proof of the permitted circumstance to file a substitute statement (e.g., inventor’s death certificate to establish that a named inventor is deceased).&nbsp; Additionally, a non-inventor applicant is not required to state in the substitute statement that he/she has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims.&nbsp; Nevertheless, the non-inventor applicant should indicate review and understanding given that he/she is under a duty to disclose to the USPTO all known information that is material to the patentability of the claimed invention as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.56.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Finally, a non-inventor applicant may postpone filing a substitute statement until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance (except for reissue applications). &nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Process for Correcting Inventorship and Changing/Updating an Inventor’s Name or the Order of Joint Inventors’ Names<em>&nbsp;</em></strong> </p>
<p>The USPTO rules enable an applicant to correct inventorship where an application or patent sets forth improper inventorship and where the prosecution of an application results in the need to add or delete one or more inventors, for instance, due to the addition or deletion of claims or an amendment to the claims.&nbsp; The USPTO rules likewise permit an applicant to change or update a particular inventor’s name if his/her legal name has changed (e.g., due to marriage), or an inventor’s name contains an error (e.g., typographical or transliteration mistake or the reversal of family or given names).&nbsp; Finally, the USPTO rules allow an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent).&nbsp; An applicant may effect a correction of inventorship or change/update to an inventor’s name or the order of joint inventors’ names regardless of the filing date of the application.</p>
<p>The table below details the requirements to make a correction of inventorship or change/update an inventor’s name or the order of joint inventors’ names:</p>
<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="151" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p align="center"><strong>Document type</strong> </p>
</td>
<td width="175" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p align="center"><strong>Type of Correction or Change</strong> </p>
<p align="center">&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td width="327" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p align="center"><strong>Required Documents for Submission to USPTO</strong> </p>
</td>
<td width="146" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d8d8d8; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top">
<p align="center"><strong>Applicable Fee</strong> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="151" valign="top" rowspan="3">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Non-provisional patent application</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td width="175" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Adding or deleting inventor(s)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td width="327" valign="top">
<ul>
<li>A request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) to correct or change the inventorship; </li>
<li>A signed ADS including inventor information for all actual inventors as required by 37 CFR 1.76(b)(1); and </li>
<li>An executed inventor’s oath/declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 for any added inventors (37 CFR 1.48(b)). </li>
</ul>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Note:&nbsp; For applications filed prior to 9/16/12, where a 37 CFR 1.48(a) request is filed after 9/16/12, the inventor’s oath/declaration must be compliant with the prior version of 37 CFR 1.63, including the requirement to identify the entire inventive entity.&nbsp; However, only the added inventor needs to execute the oath/declaration identifying the entire inventive entity.&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td width="146" valign="top" rowspan="3">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">$130 per<br />37 CFR &nbsp;1.17(i)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="175" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Correcting or updating the name of any inventor</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</td>
<td width="327" valign="top">
<ul>
<li>A request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to correct or update the name of an inventor; and </li>
<li>A signed ADS including the corrected or updated inventor information as required by 37 CFR 1.76(b)(1). </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="175" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Changing the order of the names of joint inventor</p>
</td>
<td width="327" valign="top">
<ul>
<li>A request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to change the order of names of joint inventors; and </li>
<li>A signed ADS including the new desired order of inventors as required by 37 CFR 1.76(b)(1). </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="151" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Provisional patent application</p>
</td>
<td width="175" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Adding or deleting inventor(s)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">AND</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Correcting or updating the name of any inventor</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Note: The change in order of the names of inventors in a provisional application is not provided for since provisional applications do not become application publications or patents.</p>
</td>
<td width="327" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">A request under 37 CFR 1.48(d) to correct the inventorship, or to correct or update the name of an inventor, that identifies each inventor by their legal name.</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Note: The request must be signed by either:</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">(i) a patent practitioner who is of record or acting in a representative capacity; or</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">(ii) the applicant (where the applicant is a juristic entity, the request must be signed by a patent practitioner).</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Also note: An ADS is not required.</p>
</td>
<td width="146" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">$50 per<br />37 CFR &nbsp;1.17(q)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="151" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Patent</p>
</td>
<td width="175" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Correcting inventorship</p>
</td>
<td width="327" valign="top">
<ul>
<li>A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.324; </li>
<li>A statement from each person being added as an inventor AND each person currently named an inventor&nbsp; – each statement either (i) agreeing to the change of inventorship; or (ii) stating that the person has no disagreement regarding the requested change; and </li>
<li>A statement from all assignees (of persons who are submitting a statement of agreement) agreeing to the change of inventorship in the patent – each assignee statement complying with 37 CFR&nbsp; 3.73(c). </li>
</ul>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Note: 35 U.S.C. 256 does not permit waiver of any of these requirements.&nbsp; Where compliance is not possible, any correction of inventorship would need to be done via a reissue application or through court order.</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">Also note:&nbsp; For applications filed before 9/16/12, the prior version of 37 CFR 3.73(b) applies.</p>
</td>
<td width="146" valign="top">
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px">$130 per<br />37 CFR &nbsp;1.20(b)</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Instructions Available for USPTO Inventor Oath or Declaration Forms</strong> </p>
<p>The USPTO developed a series of inventor oath or declaration forms that may be used by inventors to fulfill the inventor’s oath or declaration requirement of the AIA; the agency previously released these forms in September 2012.&nbsp; The forms are located at <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/forms">www.uspto.gov/forms</a>.&nbsp; We recently added instructions for how to complete the most commonly used inventor’s oath or declaration forms.&nbsp; For example, instructions are available for Form AIA/01, which is a declaration for a utility or design application when an application data sheet is filed in the application, and Form AIA/02, which is a substitute statement filed in lieu of an inventor’s oath or declaration for a utility or design application.&nbsp; We encourage you to consult these instructions for questions about the content of the forms.</p>
<p><strong>Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Examples</strong> </p>
<p>The Office is providing four examples to aid applicants in determining which inventor’s oath or declaration forms must be submitted to the agency for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. &nbsp;Each example sets forth a hypothetical fact pattern followed by the Office’s recommendation of the inventor’s oath or declaration and other related forms to be filed and those forms properly completed. &nbsp;The examples are intended to be illustrative of commonly encountered fact patterns.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/oath_declaration_examples.pdf"><strong>&gt;&gt; Download Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Examples</strong></a><strong> [PDF – 8.8 MB]</strong> </p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reformFrom Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Tips for Filing a Compliant Supplemental Examination Request prineharthttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/from_janet_gongola_patent_reform
Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:18:08 -0500Miscellaneousexaminationtipsaiasupplemental<p>Since September 16, 2012, the agency has received six requests for supplemental examination. &nbsp;(Please note that the first several control numbers (96/000,001 to 96/000,003) were used by the Office to test the filing system.) &nbsp;We thought you may be interested in more details about these filings, especially in case you are thinking about filing one in the future.</p>
<p>Upon receipt of a request for supplemental examination, the request is reviewed in the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) for compliance with filing date requirements (e.g., 37 CFR 1.610). &nbsp;If a request is not compliant with filing date requirements, it is not made public; rather, the patent owner is alerted about the non-compliance and has an opportunity to correct the defect. &nbsp;If a request is compliant, then it is assigned a filing date and is available to the public. &nbsp;At the same time, the request is sent to an examiner who performs the supplemental examination and decides if reexamination should be ordered.&nbsp;</p>
<p>In reviewing the supplemental examination requests received so far, the Office has found that some were non-compliant with the filing date requirements. &nbsp;The most common reason for non-compliance was the failure to provide a separate, detailed explanation of the relevance and manner of applying each item of information to each claim identified in the request (37 CFR 1.610(b)(5)). &nbsp;For this reason, we wanted to provide additional guidance to assist patent owners in meeting the requirement for a separate, detailed explanation requirement.</p>
<p>A separate, detailed explanation required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5) must state how each item of information is applicable to each claim limitation. &nbsp;A general statement of relevance that is not tied to any particular claim limitation is not sufficient to meet the requirement. &nbsp;The explanation, however, does not need to positively state that an item of information “teaches” a limitation, but instead that it has teachings that a reasonable examiner might view as important to that limitation. &nbsp;The explanation should include citations to particular portions or figures in the item of information in which the relevant teachings are located. &nbsp;Patent owners are encouraged to be as comprehensive as possible in the explanation. &nbsp;This allows for the patent owner to frame the issues and assists the examiner in focusing on the pertinent issues to better determine whether a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is raised. Generally, the guidance provided in MPEP 2214 for the content of a request for ex parte reexamination is a good resource.</p>
<p>The Office will assume that each item of information is applied to each claim requested, unless otherwise specified. &nbsp;For instance, a request, which asks for supplemental examination of claims 1-10 and cites to 5 items of information, must provide separate, detailed explanations of how each of the five items of information applies to claims 1-10. &nbsp;If, on the other hand, the patent owner wishes supplemental examination for claims 1-5 based on the first two items of information and supplemental examination for claims 1-10 based on the next three items of information, the patent owner must clearly indicate which items of information are to be applied to which claims. &nbsp;The patent owner can provide such an indication through use of (i) headings, as discussed below; &nbsp;(ii) the listing provided in fulfillment of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.610(b)(4); or (iii) a table of contents. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Additionally, a separate, detailed explanation is required for each dependent claim for which supplemental examination is requested, unless the request explicitly states that the application of the item of information to the independent claim is being relied upon as the explanation for the dependent claim(s). &nbsp;For example, the request may state: “Patent owner relies upon the explanation for claim 1 as the explanation for dependent claims 2-5.” &nbsp;If the patent owner relies on a proper, detailed explanation of an independent claim as the detailed explanation for the dependent claims, then the Office may limit its review of the dependent claims to the detailed explanation of the independent claim provided by the patent owner. &nbsp;If the request does not make an explicit statement incorporating the explanation for the independent claim or fails to provide separate explanations for the dependent claims, the Office will mail a filing date notice to inform patent owner of the deficiency.</p>
<p>Further, the Office recommends that a patent owner consider using headings and subheadings in the explanation section of the supplemental examination request. &nbsp;Headings that identify each item of information and what claims are being discussed are excellent tools to ensure clarity in the explanations. &nbsp;In addition, under each heading, the Office recommends using separate subheadings for each independent claim and its associated dependent claims, if applicable.</p>
<p>The detailed explanation should NOT state what the item of information does NOT teach. &nbsp;Although the rules provide for the patent owner to make such statements, the Office recommends that this optional discussion be made under a separate subheading (e.g., “Explanation under 37 CFR 1.610(c)(3)”). &nbsp;The review process has revealed that combining a detailed explanation with an optional discussion typically results in a lengthy discussion on why the claims are patentable over the items of information with little to no explanation as to how the item of information is applicable to the claim limitations as required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5). &nbsp;In other words, by combining the optional discussion with the required detailed explanation, the patent owner runs the risk that the Office will find that the required explanation was not provided, which will result in receiving a filing date notice of non-compliance.</p>
<p>Finally, the explanation requirement is NOT met by incorporating by reference a paper in another proceeding or relying on a third party’s paper submitted with the request. &nbsp;The explanation must be presented as the patent owner’s position. &nbsp;The detailed explanation in the request must stand on its own, and must reflect the opinion of the patent owner, and not that of a third party.</p>
<p>To assist patent owners in filing requests for supplemental examination in compliant form, the Office has compiled a “best practices” guide:&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/Best_Practices_to_Meet_Certain_Supplemental_Examination_Filing_Requirements_12_19_12.pdf">Best Practices to Meet Certain Supplemental Examination Filing Requirements</a> (December 19, 2012)</p>
<p>The guide walks through the various requirements to be included in a supplemental examination request and offers tips for how to meet them. &nbsp;Besides this guide, information on supplemental examination requests can be found in the listing of <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-supplemental-exam.jsp">Frequently Asked Questions</a>.</p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_publishes_final_rule_toUSPTO Publishes Final Rule to Implement Micro Entity Provision in Federal Registercreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_publishes_final_rule_to
Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:18:42 -0500Studies and Reports<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><b><span lang="EN">From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</span></b></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">On Wednesday, December 19, 2012, the agency published final rules in the Federal Register to implement the micro entity provision of the America Invents Act.&nbsp; The final rules set forth the procedures for an applicant to claim micro entity status and to pay reduced patents fees as a micro entity.&nbsp; The final rules also cover procedures for an applicant to notify the Office of the loss of micro entity status and to correct payments of patent fees erroneously paid in the micro entity amount.&nbsp; The final rules will be effective on March 19, 2013.&nbsp; Here is a link to the micro entity final rules in the Federal Register:</span></p><blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr">
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN"><a title="Micro Entity Final Rule" href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/77fr75019.pdf">Micro Entity Final Rule (77 Fed. Reg. 75019, December 19, 2012)</a></span></p></blockquote><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%" lang="EN">An applicant who qualifies as a micro entity under the procedures outlined in the final rules will be eligible to pay reduced patent fees once the Office completes its fee setting rulemaking.&nbsp; The fee setting rulemaking is currently ongoing and is projected to be complete in the Spring 2013.</span>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_to_host_roundtable_onUSPTO to Host Roundtable on Genetic Diagnostic Testingcreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_to_host_roundtable_on
Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:03:27 -0500Studies and Reports<p><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%" lang="EN"><strong>From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</strong></span></p>
<p>The USPTO is hosting a public roundtable in connection with the Genetic Testing Study on Thursday, January 10, 2013, from 1:00 to 4:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time in the Madison Auditorium at its Alexandria campus.&nbsp; The public is invited to participate and share remarks.&nbsp; The roundtable will be webcast; details for web access are forthcoming.</p>
<p>Section 27 of the AIA requires the USPTO to study and make recommendations regarding effective ways to provide independent, confirming genetic diagnostic test activity where gene patents and exclusive licensing for primary genetic diagnostic tests exist.&nbsp; In completing this study, the agency reviewed the academic and scientific literature, held two public hearings, and received twenty-seven sets of written comments.&nbsp; The agency determined that further discussion and analysis was needed before the agency could submit a report to Congress after reviewing the collected information, given the complexity and diversity of opinions, comments, and suggestions provided by interested parties and the important policy considerations involved.&nbsp; Consequently, this roundtable is designed to enable the agency to obtain additional information and fulfill its report obligations to Congress.</p>
<p>Additional details about the genetic testing roundtable and requirements to share commentary are available here:</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px"><a title="Notice of Public Roundtable on Genetic Diagnostic Testing" href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/77fr71170.pdf">77 Fed. Reg. 71170, November 29, 2012</a> </p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/tips_for_navigating_the_inventorTips for Navigating the Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Provisioncreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/tips_for_navigating_the_inventor
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500Miscellaneous<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%" lang="EN"><strong>From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</strong></span></span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Beginning on September 16, 2012, the inventor's oath or declaration provision became effective.&nbsp; This provision simplifies several of the requirements for filing an inventor’s oath or declaration.&nbsp; We have summarized the changes relating to the content required to be included in an inventor's oath or declaration, the situations when an AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is required, the use of an Application Data Sheet (ADS), delayed submission of an inventor’s oath or declaration, and the process for taking advantage of a combination assignment-statement document.&nbsp; Stayed tune for more guidance regarding other aspects of the inventor's oath or declaration provision in the coming weeks concerning the use of various USPTO forms for the inventor’s oath or declaration provision, correction of inventorship, and substitute statements.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><strong><span lang="EN">Content for an AIA Compliant Inventor's Oath or Declaration </span></strong></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Section 115 of Title 35, as amended by the AIA, coupled with new USPTO rules, requires an applicant to provide less information in an inventor's oath or declaration than required by pre-AIA law.&nbsp; Specifically, the AIA eliminated the need for identification of the inventor’s country citizenship and a statement that the inventor is the first inventor. The list below identifies the current requirements for an inventor's oath or declaration based on the AIA:</span></p>
<ul>
<li>
<div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN: 0in 12pt 10pt 24pt"><span lang="EN"><span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">&nbsp;</span></span></span /><span lang="EN">Inventor’s name (in the case of joint inventorship, each inventor may sign his/her own oath or declaration provided that an ADS is filed with the application naming the complete inventive entity), residence, and mailing address;</span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN: 0in 12pt 10pt 24pt"></span /><span lang="EN">Identification of the relevant application to which the oath or declaration relates;</span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN: 0in 12pt 10pt 24pt"></span /><span lang="EN">Statement that the application was made or was authorized to be made by the declarant;</span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN: 0in 12pt 10pt 24pt"><span lang="EN">Statement that such individual believes himself/herself to be an original inventor/joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application; and</span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN: 0in 12pt 10pt 24pt"><span lang="EN">An acknowledgement of penalties that any willful false statement made in such oath or declaration is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><strong><span lang="EN">When to File an AIA-Compliant Inventor’s Oath or Declaration&nbsp; </span></strong></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">An AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is required for any application filed on or after September 16, 2012.&nbsp; This covers non-provisional applications, including continuing applications (i.e., continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional, and “bypass” applications) and reissue applications.&nbsp; A “bypass” application refers to an international (PCT) application filed as a continuing application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 C.F.R. 1.53(b) and thus “bypassing” national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371.&nbsp; For an international (PCT) application filed before September 16, 2012, and entering the national stage on or after September 16, 2012, an AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is not required.&nbsp; But for an international (PCT) application filed after September 16, 2012, and entering the national stage after September 16, 2012, an AIA-compliant inventor’s oath or declaration is required.&nbsp; The table below summarizes the situations when an AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is needed.</span></p><span lang="EN">
<table style="WIDTH: 100%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="center"><strong>Type of Application</strong></th>
<th style="WIDTH: 30%" align="center"><strong>Filing Date</strong></th>
<th style="WIDTH: 20%" align="center"><strong>AIA-Compliant Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Required?</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">U.S. Application<br />(non-provisional applications, including continuing and reissue applications)</td>
<td align="center">U.S. filing on or after 9/16/2012</td>
<td rowspan="3" align="center">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">International “Bypass” Applications<br />(filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a))</td>
<td align="center">U.S. filing on or after 9/16/2012</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">International PCT Applications<br />(entering National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371)</td>
<td align="center">PCT filing on or after 9/16/2012</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><strong><span lang="EN">Use of an Application Data Sheet (ADS) </span></strong></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">An ADS is a document containing bibliographic information regarding an application, such as the identity of the named inventors, the identity of the applicant if different from the inventors, and any foreign priority or domestic benefit information.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">An ADS must be filed with an application where: (i) submission of the inventor’s oath or declaration is to be postponed; (ii) each inventor’s oath or declaration identifies only the inventor (or person) executing that particular oath or declaration and not all of the inventors; (iii) there is a claim for domestic benefit (37 C.F.R. 1.78), or foreign priority claim (37 C.F.R.&nbsp;1.55)(except foreign priority for national stage applications); or (iv) there is an identification of applicants other than the inventors under 37 C.F.R. 1.46 (except for national stage applications, where the applicant is the person identified in the international stage).&nbsp;</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">As to situations (i) and (ii), the Office must know the names of all of the inventors before examination begins in order to apply the correct prior art and to make a proper double patenting determination.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">As to situation (iii), the Office has centralized the location of foreign priority and domestic benefit claims to the ADS.&nbsp; This benefits applicants, the public, and the Office by making it easier to find this information.&nbsp; Further, the Office will recognize such claims only if they appear in the ADS.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">As to situation (iv), the Office needs to know who the applicant is, particularly where a power of attorney is being submitted by other than the inventors.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Finally, even when an ADS is not required, it is a best practice to use an ADS to aid in the correct identification of bibliographic information on the filing receipt.&nbsp; An ADS must be signed by the applicant or the applicant’s representative.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><strong><span lang="EN">Postponed Submission of an Inventor’s Oath or Declaration </span></strong></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Where an inventor’s oath or declaration or a signed ADS is not submitted on filing of the application, the Office will mail a notice to file missing parts requiring either an oath or declaration, or an ADS.&nbsp; Surcharge practice has not changed.&nbsp; Submission of an inventor’s oath or declaration later than the filing date of the application will cause the Office to mail a notice to file missing parts requiring a surcharge if not already paid, even where an ADS is submitted with the application on filing.&nbsp; Where an ADS has been submitted, the Office will not mail a missing parts notice requiring submission of the inventor’s oath or declaration.&nbsp; The Office may, however, mail an informational notice to notify the applicant that an inventor’s oath or declaration has not been submitted for each named inventor or that the submitted oath or declaration is non-compliant.&nbsp; Where the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, the Office will mail a Notice of Allowability with a 3 month non-extendable period to submit the required inventor’s oath or declaration.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><strong><span lang="EN">Combination Assignment and Inventor’s Oath or Declaration </span></strong></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">An assignment document may contain the statements required to be included in an inventor’s oath or declaration and thereby serve as the inventor’s oath or declaration.&nbsp; The Office reference to such a dual purpose document as an “assignment-statement.”&nbsp; If an applicant chooses to file an assignment-statement and reduce the number of documents to be submitted to the USPTO for a particular application, the applicant must record the assignment-statement in the USPTO Assignment Database.&nbsp; &nbsp;</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">To record an assignment-statement in the Office’s Assignment Database, the assignment recordation cover sheet must set forth the application number.&nbsp; Additionally, the assignment-statement must identify the application to which it relates, such as by name of the inventors, title of the invention, and the attorney docket number on the specification as filed.&nbsp; See MPEP 602 VI.&nbsp;</span></p><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%" lang="EN">The best practice is to file an assignment-statement electronically per the following steps.&nbsp; First, the applicant should file the application via EFS-Web and immediately obtain the application number.&nbsp; Second, on the same day that the applicant files the application, the applicant should submit the assignment-statement for recording via the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS).&nbsp; In EPAS, the applicant should check the box on the assignment recordation cover sheet to indicate that the document is intended to have a dual purpose (<u>i.e.,</u> as both an assignment and the inventor’s oath or declaration).&nbsp; Checking the box on the assignment recordation cover sheet will trigger the Office to place a copy of the assignment-statement into the application file as well as record it in the assignment database.&nbsp; If the assignment-statement is recorded on the same day that the application is filed, the applicant can avoid paying the surcharge for the delayed filing of the inventor’s oath or declaration.</span> </span>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/tips_for_filing_a_compliantTips for Filing a Compliant Preissuance Submissioncreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/tips_for_filing_a_compliant
Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:24:11 -0400Miscellaneous<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><strong><span lang="EN">From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</span></strong></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Since September 16, 2012, the agency has received a steady stream of preissuance submissions.&nbsp; Specifically, over ninety preissuance submissions have been filed under new rule 37 CFR 1.290 in the first month.&nbsp; We thought you may be interested in more details about these submissions, especially in case you are thinking about filing one in the future.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Nearly all preissuance submissions received to date were filed electronically via the USPTO’s new dedicated interface in <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp">EFS-Web system</a>.&nbsp; The Office encourages the use of EFS-Web for filing a preissuance submission because the system walks a user through the various items of information required for a preissuance submission.&nbsp; Additionally, the system makes a timeliness calculation to determine whether the submission is made within the statutorily permitted filing window.&nbsp; Thus, a third party is less likely to file a non-compliant preissuance submission when using EFS-Web over postal mail.</span></span /></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Upon receipt of a preissuance submission, the agency screened the submissions received to date for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 122(c) and 37 CFR 1.290 before making them of record in the designated application files.&nbsp; While the majority of submissions were found to be compliant, a few were rejected as non-compliant.&nbsp; The most common reason for non-compliance was an improper concise description of relevance.&nbsp; For this reason, we wanted to review the requirements for a concise description of relevance.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">A concise description of relevance should set forth facts explaining how a particular printed publication is of potential relevance to the examination of the application in which the submission has been filed.&nbsp; This is done, most effectively, by (i) pointing out relevant pages or lines of the respective printed publication where the relevant issues raised by the text are located; and (ii) providing a focused description of the import of the cited text to draw the examiner’s attention to the issues.&nbsp; Also, a concise description may be presented in narrative or claim chart form.&nbsp; A compliant concise description in narrative form may state the following:</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt 15pt"><span lang="EN">Publication X and Publication Y both disclose machines that perform the same function as the machine recited in claim 1.&nbsp; The machine set forth in Publication X includes many of the same parts discussed in the specification of this application.&nbsp; In the first embodiment depicted in Figure 2 and discussed on page 5, Publication X expressly teaches a machine that includes element A of claim 1.&nbsp; See lines 7-14 on page 5 of Publication X.&nbsp; Publication Y teaches a machine having element B of claim 1.&nbsp; See lines 1-3 on page 6 of Publication Y.&nbsp; Publication Y further teaches the benefits of using element B in this type of a machine.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Alternatively, a concise description in claim chart form may map various portions of a submitted document to different claim elements.</span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">
<table style="WIDTH: 100%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="WIDTH: 15%">&nbsp;Claim 1</th>
<th style="WIDTH: 85%">&nbsp;Publication X</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="WIDTH: 15%">&nbsp;<span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">Element A</span></td>
<td style="WIDTH: 85%">&nbsp;<span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">As discussed on page 1, publication X discloses a machine that performs the same function as the machine recited in claim 1. The machine set forth in publication X includes many of the same parts discussed in the specification of this application. For example, in the first embodiment depicted in Figure 2 and discussed on page 5, the machine of publication X expressly includes element A of claim 1.&nbsp; See lines 7-14 on page 5 of publication X.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="WIDTH: 15%">&nbsp;Element B</td>
<td style="WIDTH: 85%">&nbsp;The first embodiment also includes element B of claim 1.&nbsp; See lines 1-3 on page 6 of publication X.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></span></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">A concise description of relevance does not permit third parties to submit arguments against patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more claims are patentable.&nbsp; A concise description of relevance likewise is not an invitation for a third party to propose rejections of the claims or set forth arguments relating to an Office action in the application or to an applicant’s reply to an Office action in the application.&nbsp; Further, merely annotating or highlighting the copy of a particular printed publication will not be deemed a proper concise description of relevance.&nbsp; Additional information on the concise description of relevance requirement can be found in the listing of Frequently Asked Questions available at: <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faq.jsp#heading-12">http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faq.jsp#heading-12</a>.</span></span /></p>
<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><span lang="EN">Lastly, for a preissuance submission filed electronically via the EFS-Web system, a concise description of relevance may be entered as text in the provided text box on the “Application Data” screen.&nbsp; Alternatively, the concise description of relevance may be uploaded as a separate document on the “Attach Documents” screen.&nbsp; When entering a concise description of relevance in the provided text box, up to 250 characters may be entered.&nbsp; A concise description of relevance that exceeds 250 characters must be uploaded as a separate document on the “Attach Documents” screen.&nbsp; When filed as a separate paper, the concise description of relevance should clearly identify the printed publication to which it pertains.&nbsp; While a concise description of relevance is not required to be provided as a separate paper, the Office highly recommends this practice to ensure that the screener and the examiner may readily identify and consider it.</span></p>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_releases_guide_for_electronicUSPTO Releases Guide for Electronic Filing of Preissuance Submissionscreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_releases_guide_for_electronic
Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400Miscellaneous<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><b><span lang="EN">From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</span></b></p><span lang="EN">
<p>As of September 16, 2012, the USPTO is accepting submissions of printed publications by a third party of potential relevance to the patentability of another's claimed invention under the preissuance submission provision.&nbsp; Targeted preissuance submissions by third parties can place the most relevant art into the record of a patent application.&nbsp; In turn, an examiner will be positioned to make the most informed and efficient patentability determination possible, thereby either advancing an application to grant or issuing a rejection to prevent a low quality patent from issuing.&nbsp;</p>
<p>A third party may file a preissuance submission by paper or electronically; submission by fasimile is not permitted.&nbsp; The USPTO encourages the use of electronic submissions via EFS Web for several reasons.&nbsp; First, EFS Web guides a third party through the content requirements for a preissuance submission to ensure that the third party makes a compliant submission.&nbsp; Second, the EFS Web system calculates the timeliness of the submission to determine whether the submission is being made during permitted statutory time window.&nbsp; Lastly, the Office will consider an electronic preissuance submission filed through EFS Web faster because a paper submission must be processed into electronic form before it is provided to the examiner.</p>
<p>To facilitate electronically filing a preissuance submission using EFS Web, the Office has created an EFS Web Quick Start Guide.&nbsp; This guide outlines the steps that a third party must follow to make an electronic submission.&nbsp; Check out the guide to simplify your preissuance submissions:</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px"><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/QSG_Third_Party_Preissuance.pdf">EFS Web Quick Start Guide</a></p></span>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_reopens_the_first_inventorUSPTO Reopens the First-Inventor-to-File Comment Periodcreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_reopens_the_first_inventor
Fri, 5 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400Rulemaking<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><b><span lang="EN">From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</span></b></p><span lang="EN">
<p>On July 26, 2012, the USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed examination guidelines to implement the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions of the AIA.&nbsp; The notices set a comment deadline date of October 5, 2012.&nbsp; The USPTO has received several requests for additional time to submit comments.&nbsp; Therefore, the USPTO is reopening the comment period to provide interested members of the public with an additional opportunity to submit comments to the USPTO.</p>
<p>The new deadline for receipt of written comments in response to both the notice of proposed rulemaking and the notice of proposed examination guidelines to implement the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA is November 5, 2012.</p></span>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_concludes_roadshows_and_releasesUSPTO Concludes Roadshows and Releases Roadshow Videoscreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_concludes_roadshows_and_releases
Thu, 4 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshows<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><b><span lang="EN">From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</span></b></p>
<p>The USPTO has concluded its AIA roadshows for September 2012.&nbsp; Thanks to all who attended and supported our outreach during the one-year anniversary month!</p>
<p>We enjoyed stops&nbsp; in Atlanta, Alexandria, Va., Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and New York City.&nbsp; A total of more than 1000 stakeholders from the independent inventor, private practitioner, and in-house counsel communities joined us for good dialogue and questions about the provisions and final rules that became effective on September 16, 2012.&nbsp;&nbsp; Highlights of our activities in each city are available here:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/roadshow-highlights.jsp">Roadshow Highlights</a> </li>
</ul>
<p>For stakeholders who were not able to attend a roadshow in-person or via webinar, we are releasing a video of the program with segments recorded in Alexandria, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You may view the full day or access individual topics:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://helix-1.uspto.gov/asxgen/201209AIARSPart1.wmv"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Opening Remarks</span></a> </li>
<li><a href="http://helix-1.uspto.gov/asxgen/201209AIARSPart2.wmv"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Final Rules for Inventor’s Oath/Declaration, Pre-issuance Submission, Miscellaneous Post Patent Provisions, and Supplemental Examination</span></a> </li>
<li><a href="http://helix-1.uspto.gov/asxgen/201209AIARSPart3.wmv"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Umbrella Final Rules and Specific Final Rules for Post Grant Review, InterPartes</span></a> </li>
<li><a href="http://helix-1.uspto.gov/asxgen/201209AIARSPart3.wmv"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Review, and Covered Business Method Review</span></a> </li>
<li><a href="http://helix-1.uspto.gov/asxgen/201209AIARSPart4.wmv"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Proposed Rules for Fees</span></a> </li>
<li><a href="http://helix-1.uspto.gov/asxgen/201209AIARSPart5.wmv"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Proposed Rules for First-Inventor-to-File</span></a> </li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;In addition to these video links, the agency has published the roadshow slides as well as a very detailed reference guide to provide even more information about the newly-effective AIA provisions and final rules:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/120910-aia-roadshow-slides.pdf">Roadshow Slides</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/120910-aia-reference-guide-to-statutory-provisions-and-final-rules.pdf">Reference Guide to Statutory Provisions and Final Rules Effective on September 16, 2012</a> </li>
</ul>
<p>Lastly, don't forget to use the AIA telephone hotline and email for future AIA-related questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>1-855-HELPAIA (1-855-435-7242) </li>
<li><a href="mailto:HELPAIA@uspto.gov">HELPAIA@uspto.gov</a> </li>
</ul>http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_releases_fillable_forms_andUSPTO Releases Fillable Forms and Quick Reference Guide for How to File an Inventor's Oath or Declaration Post-AIAcreyeshttp://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/uspto_releases_fillable_forms_and
Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 -0400Implementation Activities/Roadshows<p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><b><span lang="EN">From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:</span></b></p><span lang="EN">
<p>The inventor's oath or declaration provision of the AIA is effective on September 16, 2012, and introduces changes that offer flexibility for filing an inventor's oath or declaration.&nbsp; To help inventors and patent applicants navigate the changes, the USPTO has developed an Inventor's Oath or Declaration Quick Reference Guide.&nbsp; The guide identifies when an application data sheet must be filed, when a substitute statement can be used, and how an assignment may be used as the inventor's oath or declaration.&nbsp;</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px"><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/inventors-oath-or-declaration-quick-reference-guide.pdf">Inventor's Oath or Declaration Quick Reference Guide</a></p>
<p>Besides the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Quick Reference Guide, the USPTO also has created fillable forms for oaths and declarations, substitute statements, and application data sheets.&nbsp; These forms are available on the USPTO Forms micro-site.</p>
<p style="MARGIN-LEFT: 20px"><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/forms">USPTO Forms</a></p>
<p>I encourage you to consult the guide and fillable forms when submitting an oath or declaration for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.&nbsp; Also, if you have questions regarding the inventor's oath or declaration provision or USPTO implementing rules, USPTO help is available at 1-855-HELPAIA or <a href="mailto:helpaia@uspto.gov">HelpAIA@uspto.gov</a>.</p></span>